1. MD: NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). Karnaphuli Rayon & Chemicals Limited is the first party in this case.
2. Karnaphuli Rayon & Chemicals Workers' Union is the second party. The case arises out of an application under section 34 read with section 45(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by the first party.
3. A short synopsis of things .in the background needs be recounted.
4. The second party Union submitted a representation, dated the 9th January 1970, to the Manager, arnaphuli Rayon do Chemicals Limited for consideration of 4 (four) demands of the Union. Having failed to get favourable response to their demands the Union submitted a strike notice on 23rd January 1970. Ultimately the workers resorted to strike on 13-2-1970. The first party then came before the Court on 3-3-1970 with a prayer for prohibiting the strike and for adjudication on the demands. The demands of the workers, it may be mentioned, were originally four, one having been abandoned they are now three. Bonus, Minimum Wages and Family Ration. The workers have demand 3 months' wages as bonus for 2 years. Against this demand the allegation of the first party is that there is an agreement subsisting between the parties. The workers are debarred from. raising this demand during the pendency of the agreement inasmuch as the demand has got financial implication. As to the demand regarding the fixation of Minimum Wages, it is said by the first party that it is a matter of interpretation of law and the company has fixed the wages according to law and not, in violation of any provision of the Minimum Wages Ordi--nance. With regard to the demand regarding Family Rationing it is said by the company that it is fully complying with the provision incorporated in the agreement between the parties in this regard.
5. The second party Union has filed a written statement in which they seek to justify their demands. It is said that the company made sufficient profit during the years 1-10-1967 to 30-9-1968 and 1-10- 1968 - to 30-9-1969 and the workers claim that the company has capacity to pay 3 months' wages as bonus for the above two years. As to fixation of minimum wages the second party wants to say that the wages fixed at Rs. 125.00' per month by the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1969 should be the wages for all practical purposes. The second party also urge for 'revision- of pay of semi-skilled, skilled and highly skilled workers in the context of fixation of minimum wages for the unskilled workers. It is also submitted by the second party that the company is not providing Family Ration as agreed by the Memorandum of Agreement as entered into between the company and the Union.
6. We shall now enter into a discussion-on the reasonableness or otherwise of the demands and record our findings thereon.
7. BONUS The Union presses for 3 months' wages as bonus for two years beginning from 1-10-1967 and 1-10- 1968 on the ground that during these two financial years the company earned much profit and the workers have got contribution in the same.
8. The first party submits that in view of the agreement which is in force up to 31-3-1971 the Union is debarred from raising this question of bonus. The agreement has been submitted before us. It is dated 19-3-1969 and agreed to be in force up to 31-3-1971. Clause 9 of the agreement says that the Union shall be entitled to raise demand for bonus during the currency of the, agreement provided profitability is reflected in the annual balance-sheet. Clause 12 of the agreement, however, says that during the currency of the agreement no demand whatsoever with any financial implication or any interim monetary relief shall be raised by the Union subject to the provision of clause 9 of the agreement. This shows that the Union is at liberty to raise demand for bonus, even though it involves financial implications provided profitability is reflected in the annual balance-sheet. While raising the demand for bonus the Union by their letter, dated 9-1-1970 state;' that the Management made sufficient profit and that they have capacity to pay the bonus. In the written statement also the Union has categorically stated that the company has earned a lot by way of profit. But in the fore corners of the lengthy application of the first party covering 16 pages there is nothing to show that the company is not in a financial position to pay bonus to the workers. The assertion of the Union that the company has sufficient capacity to pay the bonus has not been denied in the application of the first party who seeks for adjudication of the demand. The Annual Reports for the years 1967-68 and- 1968-69 of the Karnaphuli Rayon & Chemicals Limited prepared by the recognised Chartered Accountants are before us. These are company's documents. Admittedly they are the balance-sheets referred to in clause 9 of the agreement: We have got to see whether profitability is reflected in the balance-sheets and whether the Union could raise demand for bonus. The Annual Report of' the year 1967-68 shows profit of Rs. 52,77,000'00. Even after giving dividends to the shareholders Rs. 17,22,000'00 remained with the company. In the year 1968-69 the company had profit of Rs. 55,68,000,00 and after giving dividends to the shareholders. Rs.
9. 21,93,000.00 remained with the company. These are the profits shown as above after deducting huge amounts as shown under the headings other expenses and depreciation. Deprecia--tion shown for the first year is Rs. 74,58,000 00 and for the second year Rs. 91,53,00000. When the agreement says of the annual balance-sheets, we must rely on these documents for seeing whether there is sufficient profit for payment of bonus or not. The first party, giving a go-by to the terms of agreement as embodied in clause 9 and what is reflected in the Annual Reports prepared by their recognised Chartered Accountants placed before us some sort of calculation showing huge deficit. We are at a loss to understand what these calculations mean. The company, it may be mentioned, is enjoying tax holiday. The profits of the company to some extent should also go to the workers, for they have valuable contribution in the same.
10. In our considered opinion, the demand for bonus is not unreasonable. The workers should get some bonus and consider--ing various matters I fix it at 2 (two) months' wages .for the periods 1-10-1967 to 30-9-1968 and 1-10-1968 to 30-9-1969.
11. In this connection we shall not loose sight of the fact that, for the year 1967-68 the workers were granted ex gratia payment of Rs. 35,00 each. This amount should be deducted from the above awarded bonus of one month for the year 1967-68, from those who have already received the same (i.e., Rs. 35-00).
12. MINIMUM WAGES On this the demand, of the workers it is that the minimum wages for unskilled workers should be fixed at Rs. 125 00 for all purposes. The Management is, however, bifurcating the minimum wages by showing some amount as basic wage and some amount as minimum wage allowance. In our view, this should not be so. The consolidated minimum wages should be Rs. 125'00 per month for the unskilled workers. Leave salary, c overtime allowance bonus and other benefits should -be on the basis of the fixed amount of Rs. 125'00 for the unskilled worker. The award will be as determined above. As regards increment of pay of semi-skilled, skilled and highly skilled a workers, I think there should be no award on this as it involves great financial implications and it may end to be in violation of the-agreement entered into between the parties-agreement still subsisting.
13. FAMILY RATION The workers alleged that the establishment is not giving effect to item No. 4 of the agreement which says that food ration at subsidised rates shall be given to the workers under the same system which is in force in respect of the employees of the Karnaphuli Paper Mills Limited.
14. The first party contend that they are fully complying with this clause of the settlement.
15. In our view it will not be necessary for the workers ~to have food ration to reside within the premises of the industry. If the,,, workers reside with their family in the_ industrial area and if they could satisfy about the living with their family, they too should get food ration as provided in the clause.
16. In arriving at the decisions mentioned above I have con--sidered the views of the two learned Members. The views of learned Member Mr. Sabur are more or less in agreement with the findings arrived at by me.. Mr. Meerza has, however, entered into a lengthy discourse and has found that the application of the first party is not maintainable. It is, however, nobody's case. Parties to the case have not raised any such plea, nor the Advocates appearing for them have canvassed any such point in their arguments. The workers through their Union, which is their collective bargaining agent, raised an industrial dispute and that related to the charter of demands made by them. The first party then came before the Court under section 34 read with section 45(I) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. An application under section 45(1) presupposes x pendency of a proceeding in Labour Court relating to an industrial dispute. First party got relief by way of prohibition of the strike under section 45(1) of the Ordinance: So, the matter remained for adjudication is the demand of the workers. The Court by some previous order expressed the desire to adjudicate upon the dispute arising between the parties. It is not necessary that the Union should come before the Court by an application under section 34. Section 34 gives scope to any of the parties to an industrial dispute to -come before the Court for adjudication of the same. Here in this case by some camouflage the first party wanted adjudication on some questions. In essence it means adjudication of the industrial dispute between the parties. In my view, the contention of the learned ~ Member 'is erroneous. None of the parties after so much has happened can escape out of the decision over the dispute between them.
17. In view of the discussions and findings made hereinbefore I summarise the decisions arrived at as follows: BONUS The workers be given 2 (two) months' wages as bonus for the periods 1-10-1967 to 30-9-1960 and 1- 10-1968 to 30-9-1969 minus the amount of Rs. 35'00, if received by any worker as ex gratis payment as indicated above: MINIMUM WAGES Minimum wages for the unskilled workers be fixed at Rs. 12.5.00 per month and this should be the minimum wages for them for all purposes as observed hereinbefore.
18. FAMILY RATION All workers living with family, whether within the premises of the industry or in the industrial area should get food ration as provided in clause 4 of the Agreement.
19. The Award is given accordingly. The first party company will begin 'implementation of the Award within one month from today. It shall remain in force for a period of 2 (two) years from this date.