1. DECISION ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).--- This appeal bearing # Labour Appeal # 4 of 2003 was received from the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, Karachi and got registered with new No.KAR-533 of 2010 and thereafter notices were issued to the parties.
2. ' This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant establishment Messrs United Liner Agencies of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Company Secretary, whereby they have impugned the Award dated 23-8-2001 given by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court V Karachi, in application # 3 of 1998 under section 32(1-A) of I.R.O., 1969 (repealed).
3. ' Mr. S.M. Iqbal learned counsel for the appellant establishment and Mr. M.A.K. Azmati learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 union advanced their written arguments.
4. ' I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case as well as given due consideration to the written arguments submitted by both parties, I have come to the following:--- ' This appeal is the result of an Award given by the learned Labour Court under section 32 (1-A) of the I.R.O., 1969 (repealed) on an industrial dispute as raised by the respondent union in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (repealed). The demand was actually raised for the period of two years i.e. from January, 1998 to December, 1999. The matter was contested and reply statement was filed by the appellant management as reply to the claim and thereafter affidavit in evidence filed by the General Secretary of the respondent union who was cross-examined at length. Thereafter, both parties have submitted their written arguments and the learned Labour Court allowed the claim in respect of four demands i.e. (i) wage increase, (ii) house rent, (iii) conveyance and (iv) profit bonus, whereas the other demands were rejected. The important point in this matter is that the present appellant though have filed reply to the claim, but failed to produce any witness in the witness box and instead of producing witness, they submitted statement that the case of the appellant management has been admitted by the witness/General Secretary of the union, therefore, there is no need to produce any witness or to led any evidence on their behalf. Learned Labour Court on the basis of available evidence has considered the demands and allowed only four.
5. ' The above position constrained this Tribunal to give its findings only to the extent of the appeal of the management or to the extent of the demands as accepted by the learned Labour Court. Before going into the merits and demerits of the case, it is to be noted that during pendency of the appeal the establishment of the appellant has closed his business at Karachi and according to the statement dated 25-9-2010 submitted before this Tribunal, the licence granted by the authorities has been surrendered by the appellant management and the security deposit available with the Custom Collectorate, Government of Pakistan has been released through letter dated July, 2009, the security deposit submitted before Karachi Dock Labour Board was also released through letter dated 10th September, 2009 and the security deposited in the Karachi Port Trust has also released through letter dated 29th July, 2009 and voucher dated 6th October, 2010. Means thereby, the appellant management has closed its business in Pakistan, as such, after closure no such agreement is required to be executed. It is further noted that through statement/arguments submitted on 3-12-2010 the appellant management has contended that as because the number of workers employed is less than twenty, therefore, there is no need to obtain permission of closure under Standing Order 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and on this point learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the provisions of second proviso to Clause (c) of subsection (4) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which for ready reference is produced as under:--- "Provided further that the provisions of Standing Orders 10-B and 11, clauses (6) and (8) of Standing Orders 12 and Standing Orders 15 shall not apply in the first instance, to any industrial establishment wherein not more than forty-nine persons were employed on any day during the preceding twelve months but Government may by notification in the official Gazette, extend all or any of the said provisions to any such industrial establishment or any class of such establishment."
6. The perusal of above provision of law is misconceived as the Legislature has provided specific section, subsection, Clause or Standing Order to which the number of employees shall not be less than 49 and in the above referred proviso there is no mention of Standing Order 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and also it restricts only to the"industrial establishment", whereas the establishment of the appellant is a "commercial" one, so permission under 11-A of the Ordinance, 1968 is must for the closure of the establishment. Anyhow, the establishment is deemed to be closed, but it does not mean that the appellant would not comply with the Award given by the learned Labour Court in the year 2001 which pertains to the period of 1998-99.
7. ' I have perused the arguments and record and proceedings and reached to the conclusion that the Award given in respect of wage increase shall be implemented and necessary in view of the price hike, inflation and other factors prevailing at the tune, it would not be denied that the prices of the commodities from 1997 to 1999 were increased considerably due to increase in Dollar prices and some other reasons, so the wage increase granted by the learned Labour Court is in accordance with the principles of law and natural justice and it cannot be termed as illegal, unwarranted or without jurisdiction. Likewise, the benefit of conveyance is based on the same principles along with the increase in oil prices which resulted into high fare of public transport and maintenance cost of motorcycle along with petrol prices. The same demand is justified and the Award is uncalled for. The benefit of house rent as allowed by the learned Labour Court is also based on the above principles, as rent of houses (small or large or the huts) have been increased by twice as their earlier rents. So it is also justified and need no interference by this Tribunal. The other is the profit bonus, there are two types of profits, one is the statutory benefits as provided under Standing Order 10-C of the Ordinance, 1968 and the other one if provided under C.B.A. settlement, so the Award of the learned Labour Court in respect of 10-C Ibid, as it is statutory and the employer is bound to pay the same, whereas other bonus if available under the previous C.B.A. settlement, then the employer is bound to comply with the provisions.
8. The employer/appellant as claimed and produced certain documents that the establishment is closed down in 2009, therefore, according to its, own admission till 2009 the establishment was running, therefore, is bound to pay/allow the above benefits till the closure of the establishment; However, it is noted that neither the General Secretary of the respondent union nor any other worker has come forward to point out that upto the alleged closure the appellant management has not given any such benefits, therefore, the Award given by the learned Labour Court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with the direction to the appellant to comply with the Award of the learned Labour Court upto the decision of Award.
9. ' In view of the above observations, the appeal is disposed of and the Award dated 23rd August, 2001 given by the learned Labour Court No.V, Karachi, is maintained.