This is an appeal against an award of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Labour Court, Karachi, dated 27th April 1970. The appellant, Fishermen Co-operative Societies Employees'
Union, Karachi, had raised, as many as 11 demands against, Messrs Fishermen's Co-operative Society Limited on 23rd November 1967. The conciliation proceedings failed on 14th December 1967, and a Certificate to that effect was issued on the same date. The Union made an application before the Labour Court under section 5(5) of the Industrial Dispute Ordinance, 1959, on 21st December 1967. The Court recorded the evidence of Mr. Zar Jameel, the General Secretary of the Union and that of Mr. Hasnain, Administrative Officer Fisher--men's Co-operative Society Limited, on behalf of the Society. The learned Court adjudicated upon the demands.
2. Mr. Nayab Hussain Naqvi, the (earned Representative for the Union has challenged the finding of the learned Court on Demands Nos. 1, 4, 8 and 11. Demand No. 1, relates to the increase of pay-scale of all the workmen by 30 % with a minimum of Rs. 30.00 per month. The learned Court, 'in view of the Minimum Wages fixed for unskilled workmen and also the interim Relief granted by the Government since 1969, did not consider it just to grant the relief claimed for. The Court,, however, observed that it would be open to the Union to agitate in respect of further increase in their pay if they are dissatisfied with the concession made by the Government. Mr. Naqvi contended before me, that had the Court granted the increase in pay claimed for by the Union, the workers - could have benefited in respect of Interim Relief granted by the Government. It is true, the workmen could have benefited had they been granted the demand, which was raised in 1967. The question, however, is as to whether the Court had sufficient material before it to grant the demand. There is nothing in the evidence of Mr. Zar Jameel, the General Secretary of the Union to show the increase in the cost of living. It was open to Mr. Zar Jameel to have stated before the Court as to what, was the rate of wheat, rice and other commodities of daily use in 1962 and again in 1967. The mere general allegation that the pay-scale should be raised by 30 % is not sufficient to enable the Court to give any relief to the workmen. I would uphold the award given by the learned Court on this demand.
3. So far as Demand No. 4 is concerned, this relates to bonus for the year 1966. I have gone through the evidence of Mr. Zar Jameel. He admits that he had received bonus for the year 1966 for two months. He stated as under: "It follows that for the Business year 1966, we have received two months' bonus, but not of aggregate wages."
4. The Society has been very fair to grant the workmen two months' bonus on the basis of their pay.
This to my mind is very reasonable. No case has been made out by the Union to grant bonus on the aggregate wages. The award of the learned Court on Demand No. 4, therefore, stands.
5. Demand No. 8, relates to. Washing Allowance, House Rent and Karachi Compensatory Allowance.
The learned Court granted 50 % of the allowances that the workmen were already getting. I have gone through the evidence of Mr. Zar Jameel in respect of this demand. He has not made out any case for the increase of the demand even to 50 %. The Court, however, granted 50 % over the allowances that the workmen were already getting. The Society had been very fair and considerate to the workmen, and they have not challenged the same in appeal. I would, therefore, maintain the award of the learned Court on is demand.
6. Lastly, Demand No 11 relates to Gratuity. The grievance of Mr. Naqvi in respect of this award is that the Court should have at least made it char that the workmen would be entitled to gratuity in terms as stated by Mr. Hasnain. Mr. Hasnain stated as under: "An employee below the rank of Superintendent is paid gratuity at the rate of one month's basic pay after he has rendered 5 years satisfactory faultless and unblemished service."
7. I would modify the award to respect of Demand No. 11, and hold that the employees below the rank of Superintendent would be entitled to gratuity as stated by Mr. Hasnain
8. The award in respect of Demand No. 11 stands modified. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the modification already mentioned of Demand .ado. 11.