1977 PLP 207 (PLC)

Respondent is also running a concern at Karachi under the name and style of Sandoz (Pak.) Limited Karachi and the scales of pay at the Karachi concern were as under: ‑ A: 358‑20/5‑458‑22/3‑524 EB 25‑649‑29/3‑736 B: 310‑17/5‑395‑19/3‑452 EB 22/54‑62‑26/5‑640 C: 263‑15/5‑338‑17/3‑389 EB 20/5‑489‑24/3‑561 D : 218‑14/5‑288‑16/3‑336 EB 19/5‑543‑23/13‑500 E: 206‑9/6‑260‑10/3‑290‑10‑10/6‑353‑‑11/3‑

386. This is an admitted position that by settlement dated 5‑4‑71 parties had agreed as under: "That a general increase of Rs. 30 shall be granted to all categories of employees from grade 'A' to 'E' and selection grade with marginal adjustment in the grade. This general increase will be effective from Ist January 1971:' That by settlement dated 11‑10‑71 the parties had agreed as under (i) That Management agreed to fix the minimum level for selection grade at Rs. 400. (ii) A raise of Rs. 30 at the existing starting grade points for all the grades (i.e. A to E). That by settlement dated 22‑6‑73 the parties had agreed as under :‑ "it was agreed that an across the board increase of Rs. 25 per month per workman will be paid as an allowance as from 1‑11‑72 to 30‑6‑

73. Where after, the above allowance would be incorporated as part of the basic salary by lifting the existing scales correspondingly by Rs. 25 as from 1‑7‑73 as Annex.

1. The following scales would be effective from 1‑1‑74 as Annex. II. The Management agrees to guarantee a minimum increment of Rs. r annum for the selection grade staff with effect from 1‑1‑74."` This is also an admitted position that above raises given by the respondent were for the periods when the company was undergoing a loss and when the Government had already announced the benefit of the cost of living allowance. This is also an undisputed po3ition that for year 1974 the company has earned a profit to the tune of Rs. 10,51,806.00. To start with applicant has failed to show any justification for the revision of the pay scales to the extent asked for under Demand No. 2 (a). Absolutely no evidence has been brought on record to justify this revision to the demanded extent. It has not been shown as to what were the grounds which entitled the workers to have the above scales. A step forward this is a settled position of law that in revising the pay scales wages paid in other concern in the same industry, is not the only criterion (1962 P L C 888). The wages are determinable upon region‑cun‑industry, basis only. There‑ e fore employees of a company working at different places, cannot claim parity in wages as a matter of right (1965 P L C 326). This is also an obvious position that the conditions at Karachi and Hyderabad are quite different and the Karachi concern cannot by any means be called a comparable concern. Consequently applicant cannot claim revision of scales only by comparing their present scales with the scales which the workers of the same company are getting at Karachi. Applicant has claimed that the respondent during the last conciliation meeting dated 25‑2‑75 had made an offer regarding the increase of pay of Rs. 20 per month to be incorporated as a part of basic salary by lifting the existing scales correspondingly. But respondent had disputed this claim. It has been pleaded that with a view to arrive at a settlement, a package deal was offered in the form of flat rate increase of Rs. 20 per month in full and final settlement of all the demands subject to the further condition that a memo of settlement shall be executed by the parties for a period of 2 years. The copy of the minutes of the conciliation meeting dated 25‑2‑75 is on record. It reads as under :‑ "The representatives of the Management stated that assuming this charter of demands as full and final, the settlement will be for 2 years and we make the following offers/comments ‑ Revision of Scales.‑We make the offer of an increase of Rs. 20 to be incorporated as part of basic salary by lifting the existing scales corres pondingly." It is also to be kept in view that when the second charter of demands was given by the Union, respondent filed an application with No. 8/75 challenging the second charter of demands. Thus keeping all the facts in view it is clear that the offer regarding the increase of pay to the tune of Rs. 20 per month was not made in the form of a package deal. In the light of above facts and discussion 1 End that there is a justifica tion for the increase of Rs. 25 per month with effect from January 3975, to be incorporated as a part of basic salary by lifting the existing scales corres pondingly. That workers of selection grade would also be entitled to this raise. Award accordingly, which wilt be for the period from 1‑1‑1975 up to 31-12-1976. Demand No. 2(c)

"Proper classification and designation shall be introduced for all employees with their job description in writing in consultation with the Union (C. B.A.). Applicant has alleged that there is no proper classification or job description of the workers. Consequently the skilled or semi‑skilled workers are also called upon to perform other duty including unskilled work. As against this, stand of the respondent is that there was proper classification of the workers and this classification even otherwise was regulated by the relevant provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. That this classification is given in Annexure (R‑9) with the headings "general and financial grades" and "techni cal grades". That normally no workman is called upon to perform duty other than his own and in accordance with his own classification. Even if the worker is called upon to work in a different category it enables him to acquire different job skills and widens his experience, leading to better prospects in future. I find that there was proper classification of the workman. However it was not possible to lay down job descriptions strictly. Even otherwise it was right of the employer to ask the worker to do any job which came within the purview of his classification. If decision of the Union is to be followed in such matters, it would amount to interference with the adminis tration of the Management. Thus there was no justification for this demand. Hence it is rejected. Demand No. 4."Canteen should be run by the Management. 0.35 paisas per meal be charged from each worker." In order to justify this demand general secretary of the Union has deposed that in the other comparable establishments at Karachi the canteen is run by the Management providing food arid drinks at much cheeper rates. But in the respondent establishment canteen is being run through a contractor who is making huge profits though quality of the food is very poor. This is an admitted position that West Pakistan Factories (Canteens) Rules, 1959 are not applicable with the respondent establishment as there are less than 250 workers. Consequently no duty is cast upon the Manage ment to run the canteen itself. It therefore follows that there was no justification for the demand that the canteen should be run by the Manage ment. For the remaining part of demand that only 0.35 paisas per meal be charged from each worker, it was incumbent upon the applicant to at least show as to what were the present charges, which were being paid by the workers. In this respect absolutely no evidence has been brought on record. However during the arguments it came to light that for the lunch of 22 work ing days the charges were Rs. 40 out of which 50% was being subsidized by the Management. Thus for each lunch (fixed menu) a worker had to pay 0.90 paisas. This is an admitted position that in Hyderabad Region there is no other pharmaceutical concern. While discussing Demand No. 2(a) it nag already been pointed out that establishments of Karachi cannot be called comparable concerns as there was a vast difference between the condi u0ns of Karachi and Hyderabad. Hence for this reason alone that at Karachi concerns the charges were comparatively less, the demand cannot be allowed. In the last conciliation meeting dated 25‑2‑75 the respondent had made following offer to the applicant. 'The Management is not in a position to run the canteen however regarding charges of the meal coupons, we make an offer that the workers be charged‑‑30 paisas per meal provided that :‑ (a) Each worker will be given fixed 22 meal coupons of 50 paisas each i.e. (for working days per month). (b) Menu will continue to remain the same as present one. (c) The Management will not be responsible for any dish or material other than the fixed menu." It means that the workers had only to pay 0.50 paisas for each lunch Le. Rs. 11 for 22 meals and remaining Rs. 29 were to be subsidized by the Management. Keeping all the above facts in view I am of tire opinion that general coupons of 0.40 paisas each for 22 meals should be given by the Management to the workers and the remaining amount of Rs. 31.20 be subsidized by the Management. Award accordingly, which will be for the period from 28‑2‑1976 to 31‑12‑1976.