1976 PLP 26 (PLC)

3. Demand No. 1 was as follows: ‑ The wages of all workers be fixed in the time scale alongwith annual increment @ Rs.15 with effect from 1‑1‑1975. The learned Labour Court rejected the demand regarding fixation of wages in time scale. The second part of the demand regarding allowing annual increment, the learned Labour Court allowed increment of Rs. 10 to each worker with effect from 1‑9‑1975. This annual increment was admissible to the workers, who had completed one year of service on 1‑9‑1975.

4. Demand No. 4 read as follows:‑. All the workers be paid house rent allowance @ Rs. 15 p.m. The learned Labour Court accepted this demand and directed that it should be paid to each worker with effect from 1‑9‑1975.

5. Demand No. 5 read as follows: ‑ All the workers be paid Rs. 30 p. m. as Attendance Allowance. The learned Labour Court only allowed Rs. 10 p. m. as Attendance Allowance.

6. Aggrieved by the above award the management of Chawla Calico Printing Works, Abdullahpur, appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. Demands Nos. 1, 4 and 5.‑It was contended that there was no evidence on the record to support these demands. The learned Labour Court by importing its personal knowledge gave the award as already mentioned above. It was also contended that no evidence was produced to prove that any comparable concern was giving the aforementioned allowances as demanded in this petition. As regards demand No. 1 the only evidence produced by the respondent was that of Bashir Ahmad, General Secretary (P. W. 5) who made the following statement: Punjab Calico Printing Mills gives annual increment and it is incor porated in the settlement, but I do not know how much increment has been fixed. As regards Demand No. 4 the General Secretary stated that at the present no comparable concern was giving the house rent. As regards Demand No. 5 the General Secretary stated that Textile Mills were giving Rs. 10 p. m. but no concern of Calico was giving this allowance.

8. In the case Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Okara v. Industrial Court, West Pakistan, Lahore (P L D 1966 S C 472) it was held that the demand for house rent allow ance was in effect a demand for increase in pay and should not be allowed in the absence of evidence to show that rents in the area were higher than normal or that there had been increase in rents since pay scales were last fixed. In the present petition no such evidence regarding the increase of house rent was produced. In the case Messrs Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. The Dalmia Cement Factory Workers Union and 2 others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 153) it was held that an award based on opinion and inferences which were unsupported by facts was not proper consideration of the contention of parties or the available data on record and the award in respect of the above matters being mere guess wore, should be set aside. In the case Messrs Site Ltd, Karachi v. Five Elected Representatives of the Workers of Site Ltd, and 2 others (1973 P L C 1) the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the award of the Labour Court on the ground that there was no evidence on the record to support the demand and that the award was based solely on the personal knowledge of the Presiding Officer.

9. Under Demand No. 1 as already mentioned no instance was cited of any comparable concern giving annual increment. P. W. Bashir Ahmad, the General Secretary, merely stated that Punjab Calico Printing Mills gave the annual increment but he did not know how much increment had been fixed. This evidence was not sufficient to make the learned Labour Court to come to the conclusion that annual increment of Rs. 10 to each worker be granted.

10. As regards house rent under Demand No. 4, Bashir Ahmad (P. W.) stated that no such allowance was being given by any comparable concern. Further as already mentioned above no evidence was produced to show that rents were actually paid by the workers and that the rents had gone up since the last pay scales were fixed. Therefore in. view of the dearth of evidence the learned Labour Court was not justified in fixing house rent allowance @ Rs. 15 p. m.

11. As regards the Attendance Allowance under Demand No. 5 the learned Labour Court was not justified in fixing it @ Rs. 10 p. m. merely because Textile Mills were giving the same allowance. A Textile Mill is by no means a comparable concern and, therefore, there was no justifi cation for granting Attendance Allowance when the Textile Mill was giving C the same allowance. It may be mentioned here that a Textile Mill is a much larger organisation than the appellate concern; therefore the comparison was not proper.

12. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the award of learned Labour Court on Demands Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and dismiss the original petition of the respondent.