DECISION This is an appeal against the award of the Labour Court rejecting the industrial dispute on the ground that, in view of the previous award the fresh industrial dispute was barred.
2. The Union had earlier raised an industrial dispute and since there was no settlement, the industrial dispute was taken to the Labour Court and an award dated 24th April 1976, was made.
According to law the award was binding on the parties for a period of 2 years. Despite this a fresh industrial dispute was raised containing 25 demands. Since there was no settlement the Labour Court ways approached. In the Labour Court Demand No. 1, partly Demand No. 2, Demands Nos. 3 to 6, Demand No. 8, Demands Nos. 12 to 14, Demands Nos. 17 to 25 were withdrawn as it appears that the same had been agitated in the previous dispute and could not be re-agitated. However, the second part of Demand No. 2, Demands Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 were pressed by the Union.
3. The Management opposed the demands. A preliminary objection was taken that in view of the previous award fresh industrial dispute was barred. This ground found favour with the learned Presiding Officer and he dismissed the application under section 32 (L-A) of Industrial Disputes Ordinance. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
4. I have heard the learned Representatives for the parties. Both sides have quoted certain authorities. In some cases conflicting views have been taken. The learned Presiding Officer also relied upon certain authorities to support his view.
5. I have considered the demands which had been pressed and I am of the view that Demands Nos. 15 and 16 involving financial implication cannot be re-agitated in view of the previous award which is still in force and binding upon the parties. So far the remaining demands are concerned, I would like to express my own views.
6. Taking up Demand No. 2, the portion of which has been pressed reads as under :- "It is submitted that the workers having their permanent residence and native places far from Karachi may be granted two months' leave without pay. This special leave is being granted to the workers of the other mills at Karachi."
It is an admitted position that one month's leave without pay is being granted to the workers, but the question involved here pertains to the distance. My immediate reaction is that this is a vague demand and the actual distance which is said to be far off has not been specifically stated. It cannot be left to evidence but if the demand is raised, it must be pleaded in clear terms. One may say that Sukkut is situated at far off distance, while other may not agree and may fix Lahore to be the place entitling the relief which has been claimed. Other person can say Chitral will be place situated at a far place. By making a vague demand we stand nowhere.
7. Demand No. 7 pertain to statutory bonus as well as customary bonus whereas Demand No. 10 pertains to the making of detail entries in the service book. Both these demands are covered by Statutory provisions and can q claimed under section 34 of I. R. O. No industrial dispute can be raised with regard to these demands. So far Demand No. 9 is concerned, there is already my decision in Appeal No. KAR-3 of 1976, In re: Adam Tea Workers' Union v. Messrs Adam Tea Blending Factory, Karachi, decided on 31st March 1976, in which I held in para 9 that piece-rated and daily- rated workers are entitled to wages for weekly holidays, So the Union can approach the Labour Court for relief on the basis of my decision.
8. So far Demand No. 11 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that without prejudice to the legal objection which he had raised, he would not like to contest this demand and agreed that the designa--tion and rate may be shown on the attendance card. So I allow this demand.
9. For the reasons stated above the appeal stands disposed of.