1977 PLP 59 (PLC)

"I have heard the statement of Mr. Fahimud‑Din Manager, P. C. P. recorded by the Court today, and in view of his statement I beg to state that as overtime is being already paid to the employees in accordance a with Factories Act, 1934 similarly recess period is also being observed in accordance with the said Act, demands number 8 and 9 should be deemed to have been waived by the petitioner‑Union as there is no necessity of pressing these demands. These demands are therefore, not required to be adjudicated upon. Similarly as the Manager, P.C.P., Islamabad in his statement recorded by the Court today has informed the Court that it has been recently decided that the employees who have been provided with accommoda tion will have to pay 7 % of their basic pay as monthly rent and over and above the said amount if any, will be paid by the Corporation and also that the Corporation has approached the Government for allocation of funds for construction of more quarters. I beg to waive demand number 4 as detailed in Annexure 'A', which need not be adjudicated upon, because the petitioner‑Union is satisfied in view of the statement of‑the Manager. Moreover, as the Manager, P.C.P. Press has stated that Welfare Officer mould be appointed in accordance with sec tion 24‑A of the Factories Act, 1934 the petitioner‑Union feels satisfied with the undertaking and waives demand No. 13 as detailed in Annexure `A'. Moreover, demand No. 10 is also waived by the petitioner‑Union as the Manager in his statement recorded today has undertaken that facility of Canteen and Fair Price Shop will be provided. Demand No. 12 is also waived and need not be adjudicated because the Manager P.C.P. has undertaken in his statement that a period of one year will be fixed as probationary period for casual labourers which is acceptable to the petitioner‑Union." Hence in view of statement on the General Secretary of Party No. 1 given on 28th February, 1976, Demands Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are deemed to have been waived and withdrawn by Party No. 1. and as such do not require any adjudication. Similarly in his statement recorded on 2nd February, 1976 the General Secretary (Party No. 1) has stated regarding demand No. 7 that as there are no deputationists in the P.C.P. (Press) at Islamabad, hence he does not want to press this demand (Demand No. 7) which should be considered to be waived and withdrawn. Hence demand No. 7 also does not require adjudication. Similarly regarding demand No. 11, the General Secretary stated on 2nd February, 1976 that the Management had decreased certain categories in different sections as it seemed that the Management was genuinely trying to do so in other sections also, hence he does not want to press this demand and as such demand No. 11 also does not require any adju dication.

3. As regards demand No. 4 in view of the statement of the Manage ment (Manager of the Press) recorded on 30th March, 1976 to the effect that there are two categories of employees in the Press section of the Corporation, the Optee employees and Directly recruited employees and as the Optee employees were getting Local Compensatory Allowance, which was not being given to the directly recruited employees, the Optee employees are to pay 7 % of their total emoluments while directly recruited employees will pay 7 % of their basic pay as Monthly Rent of the accommodation provided to them and over and above of this amount if any, will be paid by the Corporation. As the General Secretary of the Party No. 1 (petitioner‑Union) gave state ment on 30‑3‑76 regarding demand No. 4 wherein he has stated that in case Award is given in accordance with the statement of the Manager as mentioned above, that would be acceptable to the petitioner‑Union. Hence it is ordered regarding demand No. 4 that the Optee Employees are to pay 7J % of their total emoluments while directly‑recruited employees will pay 7J % of their basic pay as monthly rent of accommodation provided to them and over and above this amount if any, will be paid by the Corporation, hence Award in this respect (regarding demand No. 4) is given accordingly.

4. As regards demand No. 6, in view of the statement of Mr. Fahimud -Din, Manager of Party No. 2 recorded on 15 5‑1976 wherein he has stated that the Cycle Advance which was withheld for lack of funds for some period has been allocated and is to be given to the employees and for this purpose Rs. 7,000 have been earmarked and that the P. C. P. (Press) has no intention of stopping of loans to its employees in accordance with the prescribed Rules and in view of the statement of Learned counsel of the petitioner‑Union re corded on the same date to the effect that in view of the statement of the Manager (P.C.P. Press) mentioned above, demand No. 6 be deemed to have been withdrawn by the petitioner‑Union and need not be adjudicated upon. Hence demands Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 to 13 stand disposed of as mentioned above. Now I am left with demands Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to adjudicate and determine. Demand No. 1:

5. As regards this demand it has been contended by party No. 1 that certain persons were serving in the Government Press and were given option to serve the P. C. P. (Press) and letters of Option were issued to them like the one given to the General Secretary of Party No. 1 (Exh. PA), that the persons who exercised their option and as such were transferred to the P. C. P. continued serving the Corporation under the old terms and conditions of service prevailing in the Government Press. That the Optee Employees get 7 % Local Compensatory Allowance which the directly recruited persons also received upto June, 1971. This demand per tains to the fact that the direct employees should also be given the said allow ance like the Optee employees. It has been prayed in respect of this demand that both the categories be brought at par with each other as far as Local Com pensatory Allowance is concerned. On the other hand, it bas been contended by party No. 2 that the persons who opted to be employed by the Corpora tion were previously serving in the Government Press and that they were and even now are serving in accordance with the terms and conditions of their service in the Government press. That the Employees of the Corporation who were appointed after 1‑1‑1969 are governed by the Rules and Regulations and Terms and Conditions of the Corporation itself. That both the categories cannot be brought at par with each other because the persons who were employed after 1‑1‑1969 accepted the employment knowing fully well the terms and conditions and the rules and regulations of the Corporation governing them and they did so of their own accord. The terms and conditions were duly accepted by them. That as the Rules and Regulations and Terms and Conditions of the Optee employees and the persons who were employed by the Corporation itself after 1‑1‑1969 are quite at variance with each other and the persons employed directly by the Corporation having themselves accepted, the terms and conditions of employment cannot be brought at par b the. Optee employees, because in that case the Corporation will have to pay more emoluments and provide the persons employee directly although the terms and conditions of the service were duly accepted by there of their own accord, which do not make them entitled to the same. I find myself in agreement with the contention of the Respondent (Party No. 2) and find no justification in accepting demand No. 1, which is rejected. Award given accordingly, Demand No. 2:

6. As regards demand No. 2 the Acting General Secretary of Party No. 1 has stated as under: - "As regards demand No. 2, I have to state that the Printing Corporation has got no prescribed pay scales for its employees. The Corporation has adopted National Pay Scales for different categories of employees. I produce Gazette Notification in respect of the Award of the Wage Board 'Exh. PB' and Gazette Notification in respect of Banks Employees including the employees of State Bank of Pakistan 'Exh. PC'. I also produced Administrative order of P I A in respect of its emplo yees which is 'Exh. PD' Exhs. PB, PC and PD show that the employees of the establishments mentioned in the said Gazette Notifications who are performing the same duty as is being performed by the employees of the Printing Corporation and are getting higher pay than the employees of the Corporation and on the basis of 'Exhs. PB','PC' and 'PD'. I have prepared a chart showing pay structure of comparative emoluments in P. C. P. Press, P I A and State Bank of Pakistan. The pay scales of P B C and of Trading Corporation of Pakistan may be kept out of consideration because the pay scales prevailing in these two establishments have been arrived at on the basis of mutual settle ment, and not on the basis of any Gazette Notification. The Chart is 'Exh. PE'. I also produce 'Exh. PF' which is the published proceedings of National Assembly of Pakistan. 'Exh. PF' shows the Financial position of the Corporation given by the Minister concerned in the National Assembly of Pakistan. On the basis of documents mentioned above the petitioner. Union prays 50 % increase in the present pay scales of the employees. On the other hand, it has been contended by the respondent (Party No. 2) as under : - "As regards demand number 2, I have to state that the Corporation is duly paying Ad hoc Relief given by the Government to the employees. The Corporation is running in losses since 1969 upto now and is not in a position to raise the pay scales of its employees upto 50 % of their pay as demanded. I produce the profit and loss accounts for the period from 1969‑70 to 1974‑75 'Exh. DA.' This statement 'Exh. DA' is signed by myself, Accounts Officer and Assistant Accounts Officer of the Press. Moreover, I produce Account Statement duly checked by the Chartered Accountant for the years 1972 and 1973 which are 'Exhs. 'DB' and 'DC' respectively. The Financial position of the Cor poration, which is running at a loss does not permit any increase in the pay scales of its employees. The scales and facilities afforded by the P I A and State Bank are on account of their good economic position and the said concerns are not running at loss and are in a position to give pays etc. more than the Corporation can afford. Mr. Yazdani Malik, the then Managing Director had given a letter dated 14‑12‑1968 'Exh. DD' to all the Optee employees wherein in para. 5 of it, he had stated that the Corporation will as soon as its resources permit formu late a set of alternative incentive schemes. It is also stated in 'Exh. DD' that the existing terms and conditions of all employees will not only be safeguarded but in the new Corporation, there will be positive prospects of improvement for each worker, hence the context of 'Exh. DD' does not show that he had ever promised increase in the pay scales of either Optee or direct employees."

7. In view of the above facts I am satisfied that the financial position of the Corporation is not such as to be burdoned with any increase in the wage structure of its employees. The learned counsel for Party No. 2 has also drawn my attention to certain Rulings reported in 1974 P L C 263 and 1974 P L C

276. In 1974 P L C 263 regarding the comparability of the concerns, it has been held that the Court is to consider the extent of the business carried on by the concerns, the capital invested by them, the profit made by them, the nature of the business carried on by them, their standing, the strength of their labour force, presence or absence of reserve, capital dividends declared by them and prospects of the future of their business and that these factors are to be kept in view in connection with financial demands. Similarly, in 1974 P L C 276, it has been held that in connection with the demand for fixation of wage structure, the impact of wage structure on financial position of the establishment must be examined carefully and where business is found on decline, fixation of wage structure was out of question. Thus in view of the above‑mentioned rulings, with which I have no reasons to disagree and due to the fact that the Corpora tion is running at loss, as it is evident from 'Exhs. 'DA', 'DB' and 'DC' which show that the financial position of the Corporation is not happy and that it is running at loss, I conclude that Corporation cannot be compared with the P I A and State Bank of Pakistan etc. on account of their good Economic position which are not running at loss and are well in position to give more pays to its employees than the Corporation. Hence to view of above, this demand cannot be accepted and it is hereby rejected. Award is given accordingly. Demand No. 3:

8. As regards this demand the General Secretary of petitioner‑Union (Party No. 1) has stated as under : ‑ "As regards demand No. 3, I have to state that originally the employees of the Government Press were entitled to the pensionary benefits up to the date of their retirement but subsequently vide letter No. T. S. (III) 9 (43) 70, dated 15th March, 1972, the Government decided that Optee employees who will retire before 30th June, 1977 will be entitled to pensionary benefits while the other Optee employees who will retire subsequent to the above‑mentioned date will not get the pensionary benefits. This embargo was not there at the time when the employees offered option and the right to receive the pensionary benefits was guaranteed and secured to them by the terms and conditions of their service. Hence the demand merits acceptance." And the respondent (Party No. 2) has contended in this respect as under : ‑ As regards demand number 3, Mr. Sabir Ali himself has stated that originally employees of the Government Press were entitled to the Pensionary benefits upto the date of their retirement but subsequently the government vide its letter mentioned in the statement of Mr. Sabir Ali, decided that Optee employees who will retire before 30th June, 1977, will be entitled to Pensionary benefits while the other Optee employees who will retire subsequent to the above‑mentioned date, will not get Pensionary benefits. That this embargo was not there the time when the employees exercised their option and the right to receive the pensionary benefits was guaranteed and secured to them by the terms and conditions of their service, hence from the statement of Sabir Ali, himself it is clear that it is the government which decided regarding pensionary benefits. The Corporation is also of the view that the embargo put on the pensionary benefits by the Government vide its letter mentioned in the statement of Mr. Sabir Ali, was not there at the time when the employees exercised their option and the right to receive the pensionary benefits was guaranteed and secured to them by the terms and conditions of their service, that is why, the Corporation has taken up the matter with the Government so that this genuine demand be accepted by the Government and it is the government which is to accept it and not within the powers of the Corporation to do so. In proof of the fact that the Corporation has taken up the matter, I produce copy of the letter sent by the Corporation to the Education Ministry 'Exhs. DE.' and DF' is the copy of the letter sent by the Ministry of Education to the Estab lishment Division regarding the same matter. The Corporation has got no objection if the government is asked to reconsider its decision of putting embargo on the pensionary benefits of the Optee employees as stated in detail by Mr. Sabir Ali in his statement."

9. I have given serious consideration to this demand and find that originally the employees of the Government Press who subsequently opted to serve the Corporation were entitled to the pensionary benefits up the date of their retirement but subsequently the Government vide its letter mentioned in the statement of the General Secretary reproduced above decided that Optee employees who will retire before 30th June, 1977 will be entitled to pensionary benefits while the other Optee employees who will retire subse quent to the above‑mentioned date, will not get the pensionary benefits. This embargo was not there at the time when the employees exercised their option to serve the Corporation and the right to receive the pensionary benefits was guaranteed and secured to them by the terms and conditions of their service. It is pertinent to note that the respondent (Party No. 2) has also taken up the matter with the Government as it is evident from 'Exhs. DE and DF' but as I am not in the know of the reasons for placing this embargo by the Federal Government on the pensionary rights of the Optee employees as mentioned above, the most that I can do under the circumstances, is that I recommend to the Federal Government that this issue be reconsidered by it and demand being genuine on merits re‑consideration by the Government is desir-able. The Demand No. 3 is, therefore, disposed of and award given accordingly. Demand No 5:

10. As it is evident from demand No. 5 as detailed in Annexure 'A' attached alongwith the order of reference and reproduced earlier in this award, this demand pertains to Conveyance Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Night Shift Allowance and Medical Allowance. (i) Conveyance Allowance.‑- As regards Conveyance Allowance it has been contended on behalf of party No. 1 that the employees of the Corporation are getting Conveyance Allowance @ Rs. 22.50 p.m. while the Government has increased the Conveyance Allowance to Rs. 30 p.m. hence Party No I demands that Rs. 30 p.m. should be paid as Conveyance Allowance. On the other hand it is contended by the respondent (Party No. 2) that the employees are being paid Rs. 22.50 p.m. as Conveyance Allowance and the Corporation is not in a position to pay Conveyance Allowance @ Rs. 30 p. m. as is being paid by the Federal Government to its employees' because the Corporation is running at a loss. In view of the above contentions of the parties, as far as the Conveyance Allowance is concerned, it is admitted fact that the Corporation is already paying Rs. 22.50 p. m. to such of its employees who are entitled thereto as Conveyance Allowance and if the raise of this allowance to Rs. 50 p. m. as demanded by Party No. 1 be considered unreasonable, I am of the view that an increase of Rs. 7.50 to this allowance to make it Rs. 30 p. m. as is being paid to the employees of the Central Government would not amount to any unbearable burden for the respondent, hence I deem it just and equitable to order that the respondent (Party No. 2 ) should pay Rs. 30 p. m. as Conveyance Allowance to such of its employees who are entitled to Conve yance Allowance in accordance with the Rules of the Corporation. (ii) House Rent Allowance‑-

11. As regards increase in the House Rent Allowance, the Corporation is paying House Rent Allowance @ Rs. 15 Y. of the basic pay of an employee, and although it is a fact that the Central Government is paying 20 Y. of the pay (minimum of the scale of the pay) to its employees, 15 Y. of the pay of an employee which is being paid by the Corporation is in fact more than the amount which is being paid by the Central Government and the present mode and rate of payment of House Rent Allowance is according to me more beneficial and favourable to the employees of the Corporation and in addition to the above fact, in view of the present financial position of the Corporation, I feel no justification to accept this demand of increase in the House Rent Allowance. (iii) Night Shift Allowance‑

12. As regards Night Shift Allowance, which is being paid to the employees @ Rs. 25 p. m. and it has been demanded that it should be raised to Rs. 3 per day, it has been contended‑by Party No. 1 that the Newspapers Wage Board has recommended Rs. 3 per night as Night Shift Allowance as it is evident from 'Exh. PB' while party No. 2 has contended in this respect that previously the employees used to get Rs. 20 per month as Night Shift Allowance which was subsequently increased to Rs. 25 per month in 1974‑

75. That the conditions of working of the Corporation are quite different from the conditions of Newspapers and hence the decision of Newspapers Wage Board Commission is not applicable to the Corporation and due to the present financial position of the Corporation, it is not in a position to pay Rs. 3 per night as Night Shift Allowance and that Rs. 25 per month is the maximum possible that can be paid by the Corporation. In view of the above‑mentioned contention of Party No. 2, I am also of the view that due to the present financial position of the Corporation, it would not be just and equitable to burden the respondent (Patty No. 2) with any increase in the Night Shift Allowance, and as such demand regarding increase in the Night Shift Allowance is rejected. (iv) Medical Allowance‑-

13. As regards Medical Allowance the contention of the Party No. 1 as asunder: ‑ "As regards Medical Allowance the employees are getting 5 % of their pay which is not sufficient. The Corporation is paying Rs. 28 p. m to its employees at Lahore. Although in the demands mentioned in Annexure 'A' it is mentioned that present Medical facility be withdrawn and Medical Allowance should be given @ Rs. 100 p. m. but as stated above as the Corporation is paying Rs. 28 p. m. to its employees at Lahore, the petitioner‑Union will be satisfied if the same amount i.e. Rs. 28 p. m. is paid to the employees of the Corporation at Islamabad. The petitioner‑Union is ready to waive the demand in respect of Medical Allowance exceeding Rs. 28 p.m. Originally the petitioner Union had demanded Rs. 100 p. m. as Medical Allowance as it is evident from Annexure `A'. While it has been contended by the respondent (Party No. 2) as under : ‑ "As regards Medical Allowance the Corporation is paying 5 % of the basic pay p. m. to its employees in addition to hospitalization (re imbursement of expenses incurred on purchase of medicines and the Corporation is also paying for continuous treatment of its employees after their discharge from the hospital). The Corporation is also paying for X‑ray and other test. Mr. Sabir Ali has stated in his statement that the Corporation was paying Rs. 28 p. m. to its emplo yees at Lahore and that the petitioner‑Union will be satisfied if the same amount I.e. Rs. 28 p. m. is paid to the employees of the Corpora tion at Islamabad. In this connection, I have to state that it is a fact that the Corporation is paying Rs. 28 p. m. to its employees at Lahore while it is paying 5 % of the basic pay to its employees at Islamabad. To Court.‑- It is not with my knowledge that the employees at Lahore had ever served the Management with any charter of demands including the pay ment of Rs. 28 per month as Medical Allowance. The employees at Lahore are receiving Rs. 28 p. m. as Medical Allowance since March, 1975." Thus in view of the extracts of the statements of the parties, I do not find the discrimination in the payment of Medical Allowance to the employees of the Corporation at Lahore and to those at Islamabad to be justified at all. in fact it is such like discrimination which breeds dissatisfaction and results in heat burning ultimately affecting the efficiency and production by the employees, hence I deem it just and equitable to order that the employees of the Corporation at Islamabad Press be also paid Rs. 28 p. m. as Medical Allowance as is being paid to the emplo yees of the Corporation at Lahore.

14. This Award will become effective and be implemented by respon dent (Party No.2) from 1st July, 1976 and shall remain in force for a, period of two years from the said date.