1978 PLP 177 (PLC)

Imdad Hussain Kazmi for Respondent. Petitioner‑Union came to a settlement with the Management on 20th March 1975. A photostat copy of that settlement is Exh. P. A. on the file. It was settled between the parties that all the workers who were in employment on hourly paid basis in the year 1973‑74 for a continuous period of not less than 90 dais will get 60 days bonus (60 days equal to ten weeks equal to 410 hours) @ wages drawn on 30th of June 1974.

2. According to the petitioner‑Union this clause of the settlement was not enforced properly in respect of the workers mentioned in Exh. P. B. They all are hourly paid workers and their salary on 30th June 1974, was wrongly calculated and less bonus was paid to them. Efficiency boats was not calculated while working out wages on 30th June 1974.

3. A notice was issued to the respondent who filed a written reply. Evidence of the parties was recorded, Petitioner‑Union produced its General Secretary and through him got exhibited certain documents and so was done by the respondent through Mr. Iftikhar Mahmood incharge Personnel Branch Carrier Telephone Industries, Islamabad. Exh. P. C. is a pay roll produced by the petitioner‑Union and Exh. P. A. is a registration card of an employee. Pay roll of a worker is prepared on the basis of the registration card. Contention of the Union is that efficiency bonus mentioned in column No. 9 in the registration card is not calculated towards wages. There are two modes of payments to two different categories of workers. There are monthly paid workers who are called employees and there are hourly paid for workers who are called workers. If monthly paid workers work efficiently then they are given next grade as reward for their efficiency, but hourly paid workers are given efficiency bonus if they work efficiently so as to give production more than a normal worker.

4. Contention of the petitioner‑Union is that this efficiency bonus is paid to them for their efficient work so this amount should also have been calculated while calculating their waits on 30th Juno 1974.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that hourly paid workers are also put to next grade or group if they work in efficient way constantly and for this reason efficiency bonus was not calculated towards wages on 30th June 1974.

6. Mr. Iftikhar Mahmood a witness of the respondent has admitted in his cross‑examination that overtime is calculated on basic wages plus efficiency bonus. Efficiency bonus is not a bonus on profit it is an incentive to the workers to work hard and efficiently so it is a part of the wages. Management may put the efficient workers in the next group or grade or may not but efficiency bonus is earned by them by their labour. It is calculated for the payment of overtime and there is no reason why it should not be cal culated towards wages while calculating wage of a worker.

7. In that view of the matter I find that efficiency bonus is part of wages and it should be calculated as an extra wages for an extra and efficient work.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that petitioner should have filed a petition under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, to get interpretation of settlement dated 20th March 1975. I am sorry I do not see any ambiguity in the settlement the only point for determination is whether efficiency bonus is not a part of a wages, efficiency bonus is earned by efficient workers, it becomes a pert of wages.

9. So I directed the Management to calculate efficiency bonus towards wages and should pay the bonus or difference thereof by calculating efficiency bonus towards wages for the relevant period.