The award made by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur has been challenged to the extent of the decision recorded on demands Nos, 1, 2 and 5 in this appeal.
2. Demand No, 1.-Bonus for the year 1981 equal to four months' pay was claimed in demand No, 1.
The respondent was paying previously bonus equal to two months' pay. It has been argued by the General Secretary that bonus equal to two months' pay was being allowed according to the previous practice, therefore, since the respondent earned profits during the year 1981, the bonus should have been increased at the rate of four months' pay. The previous practice is not known to the Labour Laws. Customary bonus is recognised by the law but this kind of bonus should be ancient, continuous and without the condition of profit. There is no evidence to prove the said conditions. Bonus equal to two months' pay was paid only for two years. Such a short period cannot prove that the bonus was ancient and continuous. There is no evidence that without the condition of profits it was being paid. So the fact that bonus equal to two months' pay was being paid is to be ignored while deciding if the workers are entitled to bonus in future and if so at what rate ? The respondent earned profits admittedly equal to Rs, 12,000 only. In view of this profit bonus equal to two months' pay is much more. So, the direction of payment of bonus equal to two months' pay cannot be interfered with.
3. Demand No, 2.-Uniform has been claimed to be used while grinding flour. The ground is that the previous management had accepted this demand. This cannot be a ground to claim a facility through Court. The previous management may have felt afraid of the threat of strike, so accepted the demand. However, this demand does not appear to be frivolous. Flour falls on the clothes and cannot be completely removed. So, with the same clothes the workers cannot go out of the Mills.
They may wash hands, face and feet and thus remove the flour but cannot wash and dry up the clothes in the Mills within a short time. In summer it is absolutely impossible to remove flour from the clothes as they get wet with the sweat. So, supply of uniform for use during duty hours is necessary. One pair of uniform for summer and one for winter consisting of shirt, trousers and big handkerchief for wraping the head should be supplied. The demand is accepted to this extent.
4. Demand No, 5.-House rent allowance is being paid at present at Rs, 35 per mensem and claim is that it be enhanced to Rs, 55 per mensem. The reason is that rent rates have been increased. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no evidence that the workers are actually residing in rented houses and pay Rs, 55 as rent. The argument is not tenable. Such an argument could be useful if no house rent allowance was being already paid. But the difficulty is that there is no evidence as to what extent the rates of rent have been increased in Multan. Only this much can be said that as rates of other things are increasing the rate of rent may have increased but the question is upto what extent the house rent allowance be increased. Since the appellant has failed to lead cogent evidence on the point, the learned lower Court rightly disallowed this demand.
5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and the respondent is directed to supply one pair of uniform in summer and one in winter consisting of shirt, trousers and a piece of cloth 1 x 1 meter for covering on the head, all of Kora Latha cloth.