1993 PLP 815 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 9th May, 1993. This Constitutional petition is directed by the petitioner against order dated 3‑12‑1975 of the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Faisalabad whereby it was held that petitioner/management was bound to pay bonus equal to one month's wages to the respondent/workers over and above the bonus already paid to them.

2. Briefly stated, respondents filed an application under section 34 of the I.R.O.1969 against the petitioner, Crescent Textile Mills Ltd., and claimed bonus of one month as guaranteed under para. 10‑C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. This was relatable to the year 1973‑

74. Petitioner pleaded before the Labour Court that a settlement between the parties had already been arrived at according to which three months' pay was to be given to respondents and this included one month's salary under para. 10‑C as bonus for the year 1973‑

74. Reliance is placed on clause A of the settlement dated 18‑1‑1975. The stand of the respondents was that they were legally entitled to one month's bonus under para. 10‑C, aforementioned, in addition to the settlement between the parties. Learned Labour Court after dealing with the matter extensively accepted the application of respondents vide order dated 3‑12‑1975 holding as under:‑‑ "Whatever the case may be the management is bound to pay bonus equal to one month's wages to the workers over and above the bonus already paid to them. The respondent is accordingly directed to pay this bonus within one month of this order." It was further observed that there was no dispute about actual profit which was one crore and seventy lacs in the year 1973‑74.

3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly contending that settlement arrived at includes one month's salary as bonus under para. 10‑C for the year 1973‑74 and that the management is not liable to pay any other amount. Learned counsel for petitioner precisely argues that one month's salary as bonus for the year 1973‑74 is already included in the settlement and that the petitioner is not liable to pay any other bonus. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents vehemently argues that the respondents are entitled to receive one month's bonus under para. 10‑C for the year 1973‑74 on the basis of profit in addition to the settlement arrived at between the parties.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that settlement between the parties took place in pursuance of an industrial dispute between the parties and it is the settled law that no such dispute can be raised in respect of any right guaranteed or secured under any law, settlement or award. Learned Labour Court while defining what is the industrial dispute found in favour of respondents that one month's salary as bonus was a right guaranteed under para. 10‑C, therefore, industrial dispute between the parties in respect of which the settlement took place was not regarding the bonus guaranteed under para. 10‑C of the aforementioned Standing Order.

5. The Labour Court also examined D.W.1 Muhammad Anwar, Managing Director and Saleh Muhammad Niazi, President of the Union and after discussing their evidence, accepted the application of respondents on the ground that they were entitled to one month's salary as bonus under para. 10‑C in addition to the grant of any bonus under a private settlement. Learned counsel for respondents has argued on the lines in which the decision has been given by the Labour Court vide its order dated 3‑12‑1975.

6. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on PLD 1981 SC 495 "Pak Cigarette Labour Union v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi" in support of his contention reproduced above: The facts of the precedent case are not applicable to the present case as is clear from the following paragraph on page 498 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court:‑‑ "I am, however, unable to accept Mr. Minto's submission, because clause (4) is merely a saving clause. And, because it states that nothing in the Order `shall be deemed to affect the right of any workman to receive any bonus other than that payable under clause (1) to which he may be entitled in accordance with the terms of his employment', this does not mean that the workman is entitled to the statutory bonus in addition to the bonus to which he may be entitled `in accordance with the terms of his employment'." In the instant case, three months' bonus was only by virtue of a settlement arrived at on 18‑1‑1975 relatable to the year 1973‑74 and was not "in accordance with the terms of employment of the respondents". Petitioner may or may not have agreed to pay the additional bonus and this agreement arose out of an industrial dispute between the parties. In case the petitioner had not agreed to pay the extra bonus, respondents may not have been able to claim the disputed bonus and would confine their claim only to the bonus available under para. 10‑C. The principle of law enunciated in the aforementioned case would only be applicable if the bonus was agreed by the employer in accordance with the terms of employment and in that eventuality a worker was entitled only to the bonus under para. 10‑C and if the agreed amount would fall 'short of the statutory bonus, the difference was to be paid by the employer. But here the situation is different. Petitioner might not have paid any extra bonus in the subsequent years except the bonus under para. 10‑C. Resultantly, writ petition has no merits and is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./C‑25/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed,