1993 PLP 515 (PLC(CS))
M/s. DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI Versus DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LABOUR UNION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 515 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI Versus DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LABOUR UNION, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 515 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 515 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 515 (PLC(CS)) (M/s. DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI Versus DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LABOUR UNION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Amjad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th January, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 50‑‑‑Interpretation of settlement‑‑‑Settlement arrived at between parties with regard to increase in wages and in conveyance allowance of employees‑‑‑Employer had claimed that such increase was made due to rise in cost of living; thus amounts of increase were liable to be set off and adjusted against increase of 13.5% which was liable to be paid under Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985 and only difference, if any, was to be paid to employees‑‑‑Charter of Demands and Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between parties, had not a word to say that increase in wages and conveyance allowance was on account of rise in cost of living‑‑‑Settlement arrived at between parties and counter‑affidavit by employer had made out that increases were not to meet rise in cost of living, but was in line with pattern of increase in wage structure and allowances, a system which was prevalent in employer's company for a number of years‑‑‑Increase in cost of living allowances, in circumstances, was not to be adjusted in wages and conveyance allowances given to employees according to settlement‑‑ Settlement was interpreted accordingly. Borroughs Wellcome (Pak.) Limited Employees' Union v. Borroughs Wellcome (Pak.) Limited 1982 PLC 868; Employees' Union v. M/s. New Jubilee Insurance Company Limited 1981 PLC 705; Elite Textile Mills Ltd. v. Workers' Union 1974 PLC 240; Prince Glass Works Limited v. Workers Welfare Union 1982 PLC 984; Cynamide (Pak.) Employees' Union v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1989 PLC 482; R.B. Industries v. Employees' Welfare Union PLD 1983` $C 15 ref. Riaz Hussain Baloch for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
per day. (ii) Workers having wage rate over Rs.15.16 up to Rs.21.22 per day @ Rs.2.77 per day. (iii) Workers having wage rate over Rs.21.22 up to Rs.26.27 per day............ @ Rs.3.27 per day. (iv) Workers having wage rate over Rs.26.27 up to Rs.32.33 per day..........@ Rs.3.85 per day. (v) Workers having wage rate over Rs.32.33 up to Rs.44.00 per day .@ Rs.4.61 per day. (b) The wage rate mentioned hereinabove shall consist of basic plus C.LA. but does not include last special C.LA. of Rs.40.00 per month. (c) That in order to promote good industrial relations between the management and the workers, it is agreed that workers will be paid arrears on account of wage rate difference calculated on actual number of days worked by respective workers including overtime and leave payment from 1‑1‑1982. (d) Those confirmed in service on and after 1‑1‑1982 till the date of signing of this settlement will be allowed the benefit under clause (1)(a) and (c) above from their respective date of confirmation.
14. For the year 1983 the increase of wages was as follows:‑‑ It is agreed between the management and the Union that all the permanent daily‑rated workers in service on the date of signing of‑this‑ settlement be allowed wage increase w.e.f. 1‑1‑1983 on the following schedule and subject to the following conditions:‑ (a) (i) Workers having wage rates up to Rs.15.00 per day @ Rs.2.40 per day. (ii) Workers having wage rates over Rs.15.o0 up to Rs.20.o0 per day @ Rs.2.97 per day. (iii) Workers having wage rates over Rs.20.00 up to Rs.25.00 per day @ Rs.3.43 per day. (iv) Workers having wage rate over Rs.25.o0 up to Rs.30.00 per day @ Rs.4.10 per day. (v) Workers having wage rates over Rs.30.00 up to Rs.35.00 per day @ Rs.4.83 per day. (vi) Workers having wage rates over Rs.35.00 .@ Rs.5.25 per day. (b) The wage rate mentioned hereinabove shall consist of basic plus C.LA. but does not include last special C.LA. of Rs.40.00 per month. (c) That in order to promote good industrial relations between the management and the workers, it is agreed that workers will be paid arrears on account of wage rate difference calculated on actual number days worked by respective workers including overtime and leave payment from 1‑1‑1983. (d) These confirmed in service on and after 1‑1‑1983 till the date of signing of this settlement will be allowed the benefit under clause (1)(a) and (c) above from their respective date of confirmation. (e) It is further agreed that the permanent daily‑rated workers in service on 1‑1‑1984 will be allowed wage increase w.e.f. 1‑1‑1984 on the same wage classification and terms and conditions on the following schedule:‑‑ (1) Workers having wage rates up to Rs.15.00 per day .@ Rs.6.65 per day. (2) Workers having wage rates over Rs.15.00 up to Rs.20.00 per day .@ Rs.3.25 per day. (3) Workers having wage rates over Rs.20.00 up to Rs.25.00 per day @ Rs.3.75 per day. (4) Workers having wage rates over Rs.25.00 up to Rs.30.00 per day ..@ Rs.4.25 per day. (5) Workers having wage rates over Rs.30.00 up to Rs.35.00 per day ..@ Rs.5.20 per day. (6) Workers having wage rates over Rs.35.00 ..@ Rs.5.75 per day. 14‑A. And as for the conveyance there was an increase of 1.25 paisas w.e.f. 1‑1‑1983.
15. In regard to the year 1985 the increase in wages was as follows:‑‑ It is agreed between the management and the Union that all the permanent daily‑rated workers in service on the date of signing of this settlement be allowed wage increase w.e.f. 1‑1‑1985 on the following schedule and subject to the following conditions:‑‑ (a) (i) Workers having wage rate up to Rs.15.00 per day ..@ Rs.2.69 per day. (ii) Workers having wage rates over Rs.15.00 up to Rs.20.00 per day .@ Rs.3.31 per day. (iii) Workers having wage rates over Rs.20.00 up to Rs.25.00 per day .@ Rs.3.86 per day. (iv) Workers having wage rates over Rs.25.00 up toRs.35.00 per day @ Rs.4.30 per day. (v) Workers having wage rates over Rs.30.00 up to Rs.35.00 per day @ Rs.5.23 per day. (vi) Workers having wage rates over Rs.35.00 .@ Rs.5.80 per day. (b) The wage rates mentioned hereinabove shall consist of basic plus C.LA. but does not include last special C.L.A. of Rs.40.00 per month. (c) That in order to promote good industrial relations between the management and the workers, it is agreed that workers will be paid arrears on account of wage rate difference calculated on actual number of days worked by respective workers including overtime and leave payment from 1‑1‑1985. (d) Those confirmed in service on and after 1‑1‑1985 till the date of signing of this settlement will be allowed the benefit under clause (1)(a) and (c) above from their respective date of confirmation. (e) It is further agreed that the permanent daily‑rated workers in service on 1‑1‑1986 will be allowed wage increase w.e.f. 1‑1‑1986 on the same wage classification and terms and conditions on the following schedule:‑‑ (1) Workers having wage rate up to Rs.15.00 per day .@ Rs.2.75 per day. (2) Workers having wage rates over Rs.15.00 up to Rs.20.00 per day @ Rs3.40 per day. (3) Workers having wage rates over Rs.20.00 up to Rs.25.00 per day @ Rs.4.00 per day. (4) Workers having wage rates over Rs.25.00 up to Rs.30.00 per day ..@ Rs.4.40 per day. (5) Workers having wage rates over Rs.30.00 up to Rs.35.00 per day @ Rs.5.30 per day. (6) Workers having wage rates over Rs.35.00 ..@ Rs.6.25 per day."
16. There is also an affidavit which has been filed by Shakir Ibrahim Dadabhoy who is a Director of the Company. After mentioning that the increase in the wages in the settlement in dispute was not byway of normal annual increment, but was an increase "given to provide cushion to the workers due to rise in the Cost of Living:" it has the following to say in paras.10 and 11 of the aforesaid Affidavit in Rejoinder:‑‑ "
10. That in the earlier memorandum of settlement that was concluded between the management and Union, increase in the wages was not given due to the rise in the Cost of Living but in view of the fact that the workers at their own had claimed that their wages were less than other comparable concerns and the managements on their part had ascertained this from other comparable concerns and it is for this reason, the management had increased the wages of the workers earlier and had not effected set‑off in the Cost of Living Allowance.
11. That the reference to Exh. R/3 made by Muhammad Yusuf, General Secretary of the Union is again out of context and is misleading. Without prejudice to the above, reference to Exh. R/3, it will be revealed that the increase in the wages given under the settlements dated 21‑1‑1976, 26‑1‑1977, 23‑2‑1978, 31‑1‑1979, 13‑2‑1980 and 31‑3‑1981 was not on uniform basis but varying from year to year. This further goes to show that variation was in view of the fact that the management earlier was trying to fill up the gap between their wages and the wages of other comparable concerns."
17. The settlement and this counter‑affidavit read in juxtaposition, clearly make out that the increase was not to meet the rise in Cost of Living but was in line with the pattern of increase in the wage structure and allowances, a system which was prevalent in this company for a number of years.
18. I am therefore of the opinion that increase in the Cost of Living Allowances is not to be adjusted in the wages and the Conveyance Allowance under clauses 2 and 7 of the settlement referred to earlier. H.B.T./2167/Lb.S Order accordingly.