' This appeal has been preferred against the decision, dated 26th May, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad, whereby the industrial dispute brought under section 32 (1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was partly accepted making some demands rule of the Court and rejecting the rest.
2. Demand No, 5 was that either the alleged without ticket passengers should be summoned and examined at the places of enquiry, or the Enquiry Officer should proceed to the residences of the passengers to record their statements, so that the conductors under enquiry could cross-examine them. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this demand is not legal, inasmuch as the management cannot order the enquiry officer to summon the passengers. The argument is without force. There is no illegality but the enquiry officer and the management having no control over private persons cannot force their attendance. If a passenger refuses to come no coercive measure can be adopted against him. Moreover, a passenger should not be put to trouble simply because he happened to travel in a P. R. T. B. Bus. On the other hand, it is, feasible for the conductor concerned to bring a particular passenger. This is also not feasible and convenient to shift the place of enquiry to the residence of a particular passenger in every case in which the respondent is a conductor. The demand has been rightly rejected by the learned lower Court.
3. Demand No, 7.-The claim that representative of the worker under enquiry should belong to a different establishment and not from the one where the worker is employed. If the demand had been accepted by the respondent, there could be no wrong but no Court would accept a demand which is against the provision of law. Standing Order 15 (4)" directs that the representative would belong to the same establishment. The demand is rejected.
4. Demand No, 9.-It is demanded that grievance notice should be given not to the punishing authority but to the higher authority. I have held in many cases that if grievance notice has been given to a higher c authority who has some control over the worker concerned, it satisfies the requirement of law. But it is not necessary to include this thing in an award. The demand is answered accordingly.
5. Dramads Nos, 12 and 58.-The demands are accepted to the extent that the workers who are in danger of being retrenched be enquired if they want to be transferred to another service. If they are willing, they be transferred, otherwise they may be reverted to lower rank, wherefrom they had been promoted and if they are direct appointees, they may be retrenched. The workers so transferred to another service shall be brought back to the same service in the first vacancy, information of which shall be brought by them from the District Manager concerned.
6. Demand No, 13.-Claim is that settlement of 1969 arrived at between R. T. B. Union Lahore and R. T.
C. Should be applied to Faisalabad also. Settlements are made by mutual consent. If Faisalabad management does not agree to apply the settlement of another place, there can be no justification to force the management to accept it. Staff Promotion Rules of 1976 are in force. Since no certified copy of the settlement referred to in the demand D has been placed on the file, it cannot be said if the rules of 1976 are in conformity with the settlement or there is any disparity. So, the said settlement cannot be blindly thrusted upon the management. The demand is rejected.
7. Demand No, 15.-The demand is that scales of local conductor and district conductors be brought at par. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that record was summoned but it was not produced, therefore, oral statement of P. W. 4 should be accepted. The statement of this witness shows that there is difference in the nature of duties of the two kinds of conductors. So, the demand cannot be accepted.
8. Demand No, 17.-The claim is that conveyance allowance be given at Rs,
100. House allowance at Rs, 45 is being given to the employees. No conveyance allowance, therefore, can be allowed for residing in cities. The workers who have chosen to reside out of cities cannot for this reason claim conveyance allowance. Demand is not justified and is rejected.
9. Demand No, 20.-The demand is justified upto one worker per year. As the expenses by Air have increased considerably, it is ordered (Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal) that expenses by ship in II class be a llowed. Haj leave will be for one and a half months.
10. Demands Nos, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31 and 32 have not been pressed, so they are disallowed.
11. Demand No, 34.- Duties of junior clerks and booking clerks not being of the same type, there is no justification to place them in the same scale. The demand is rejected.
12. Demand No, 35. -There is no evidence that there is any difference in leave facilities for old and new employees. So, the demand is rejected.
13. Demand No, 38.-M. B., B. S. Doctors being more competent and highly educated in medicines than the Hakims and Saniasees, there appears to be no justification to order that certificate of the latter be accepted for granting leave on medical grounds. There is also no justification for not demanding medical certificate upto three days leave. The whole of the demand is disallowed.
14. Demand No, 46.-Since the prayer contained in the demand is guaranteed by sections 25-A and 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, there is no justification for further creation of any right. The demand is rejected.
15. Demand No, 47.--As it is not known whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver and as the vehicle of the transport service is also usually damaged, there appears to be no justification in binding the respondent to bear the expenses of litigation.
Demand is not justified and thus is rejected.
16. The industrial dispute is answered as above and the appeal is accepted to that extent.