' These 38 applications have been preferred by the applicants herein-under section 51 of I. R.
0., 1969 for the payment of bonus in respect of the financial year 1981-82, at the rate specifically mentioned in each application.
2. Messrs Karim Cotton Mills Workers Union is said to be C. B. A, for the respondent's establishment.
It is said to have entered into a settlement on 7th May, 1981, after complying with necessary formalities. According to this settlement, besides other demands, the respondent agreed to pay bonus for the year 1980-81 to all such employees as are referred to in the settlement itself. It was also said to have been agreed that this settlement shall be binding upon the parties for the year 1981-82 as well. The agreed bonus for the year 1980-81 was paid to all the workers. However, for the bonus of year 1981-82, the respondent affixed a notice on 6th May, 1982 intimating that the bonus for 1981-82 shall be paid on 22nd June, 1982. However this bonus was not paid and so this nonpayment was claimed to be in violation of the settlement referred to above and on these premises the present applications have been instituted.
3. The respondent resisted these applications and in its reply statement the maintainability of the applications as also the jurisdiction of this Court has seriously been questioned. The status of the applicants has also been challenged pleading that they fall in the supervisory category and so they are outside the definition of "workmen". On merits, it has been urged that the financial year of the respondent mill commences from 1st October, and ends on 30th September each year. It has been denied that the payment for the years 1981-82 was payable in terms of settlement dated 7th May, 1981 or that the said settlement was binding on the parties even for the year 1981-82.
According to the respondent, the settlement was effective in between 1st of April, 1981 and 31st of March, 1982 and was binding only in respect of the demands of increase in wages, bonus for the year 1980-81, workers profit participation fund and grant of cloth. The agreed bonus has already been paid in persuance of the settlement and since there had been no settlement for the year 1981.82, there was no occasion for payment of bonus for the year 1981-82. It has also been pleaded that the dispute for the bonus for the year 1981-82 between the C.B.A., Union and the respondent was first raised in this Court by the Union itself vide Application No, 8/82 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 14th November, 1982 because the Union had agreed to discuss and resolve the same by March, 1983. It has also been pleaded that in persuance of several meetings of bilateral negotiations held on 9th June, 1982, 22nd February, 7th, 21st and 23rd March, 1983, a settlement dated 31st March, 1983 was concluded and according to it the question of payment of bonus for the year 1981-82 was to be decided through arbitration and so the same is still undecided.
4. On the application of the applicants dated 14th May, 1983, my learned predecessor Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo ordered for the consolidation of all these applications. Accordingly, Samiullah, Abdul Rehman and Abdul Waheed were tendered in evidence in support of the applications, in Application No, 19/82 while Malik Sirajuddin Manager of the respondent and Zareen Khan General Secretary of C.B.A., Union have been examined on behalf of the respondent. After the evidence I have heard Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan Advocate for the respondent. None however submitted oral or written arguments on behalf of the applicants though a number of dates were allowed for this purpose. I have also minutely scrutinized the factual and legal position involved in this case.
5. The basis for this claim is the settlement dated 7th May, 1981 and according to the applicants as pleaded in their respective applications the respondent had agreed to pay bonus for the year 1981- 82 as well. The other document on which the claim is founded, and which document has in fact been given much importance is one notice dated 6th May, 1982. I would accordingly examine if these documents can give rise to a cause of action to the applicants to claim this bonus. However, since the maintainability of the applications as also the jurisdiction of this Court has been under serious attack on behalf of the respondent, I would like to examine the legal objections in the beginning as the same go to the route of these cases.
6. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the settle- ment was made between the C. B. A., and the respondent and such settlement was arrived at after service of charter of demands and the negotiations and conciliation proceedings. Accordingly, the charter of demands pertaining to this settlement is an important document and if the present bonus of 1981-82 is not included therein, it cannot be interpreted that the bonus for 1981-82 is also payable under the said settlement. It has next been contended that in any case the C.B.A., had itself brought a case for the recovery of disputed bonus but later on the application was withdrawn and thereafter, in pursuance of settlement dated 31st March, 1983 the matter has been referred to an Arbitrator where this dispute is still pending. Mr. Ghani submitted that in view of the pendency of this dispute before an Arbitrator on the joint request of the workers through C. B. A. And the respondent, individual persons cannot claim bonus as of right and so the applications are misconceived and not maintainable in law. Learned counsel also submits that the present applications have been brought under section 51 of I. R.
0., 1969. The application for the recovery under this provision can be brought only if the claim is founded on the basis of settlement or an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal. In the instant case there is no such condition available and so these applications would also not be maintainable in the manner as preferred here. Learned counsel has referred to a number of provisions of the relevant law to show that notice dated 6th May, 1982 is not covered by any settlement or award and so it cannot be enforced. It has also been urged that the applicants are also not entitled to any profit bonus as contemplated by S.
0. 10-C, particularly when the respondent has suffered heavy losses. Lastly it has been contended that the final year ends on 30th September of each year and so the present applications are also premature.
7. These applications are no doubt under Section 51 of I. R. O., 1969. Though in fact this claim of the applicants are founded on notice dated 6th May, 1982 but the settlement dated 7th May, 1982 has also been repeatedly referred to and relied upon in the applications. The settlement has been brought on record as A/1. According to it the settlement was drawn in persuance of charter of demands dated 10th April, 1981, As per the settlement itself the demands advanced by the. C.B.A., were apparently for the increase of wages, payment of bonus for the year 1980-81, workers participation fund and the cloth. The charter of demands has also been produced on behalf of the respondent as Annexure R/1 and according to it 12 demands were placed on the respondent which included the bonus only for the year 1980-81. The settlement in question was also agreed to be binding and operative on the parties from 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1982 and it was further specifically agreed that during this period no further demand shall be brought by the Union in any manner.
8. Whenever any industrial dispute arises in between the C.B.A., and the management notice under section 26 of I. R.
0. Is to be served on the management specifying the demands and such a notice is mandatory.
After the notice bilateral negotiations are made, conciliation proceedings are also to be held and if any settlement is made, a settlement is to be drawn in writing in form "W" under rule 69 of Industrial Relations Sind Rules. Copy of such settlement is also to be forwarded to various Authorities. If no settlement is arrived at then the proceedings are to be resorted to under section 32 (1-A) of I. R.
0., 1969. It therefore shows that the settlement is to proceed a charter of demand and the demands made in the charter of demands shall be the basis for the settlement. As referred to above, the bonus as claimed by the C. B. A., in the charter of demands dated 10th April, 1981, was only for the years 1980-81. Moreover, the settlement was only effective upto 31st March, 1982. It has been pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the financial year of the respondent is from 1st October each year and since the charter of demands in this case was only served on 10th April, 1981, the demand for the bonus for the year 1981-82 was neither advanced nor intended to be advanced nor included in the settlement in question. Not only this but the settlement was also confined to the demands already raised negotiated and settled and so it cannot be urged by the applicants that the respondent had agreed to pay bonus for two years viz. 1980-81 and 1981-82. It is pertinently mentioned that if according to the applicants the financial year ends on 31st of March of the year, the demand of bonus for 1981-82 cannot be based on settlement dated 7th May, 1981 for the simple reasons that the charter of demands preceding settlement was made on 10th April, 1981 and settlement was signed on 7th June, 1981, all during the continuance of year 1981-82. However, the demands were raised and settled only for the year 1980.81 and this is sufficient to repel the contention of the applicants that this settlement is also for 1981-82. It has rightly been urged on behalf of the respondent that the question of payment of bonus for the year 1981-82 did not arise for the simple reason that at the time when the individual workers created law and order situation in the mill the year had not ended by that time because the final year was to be closed on 30th September, 1982. In this view of the matter, it cannot be pleaded by the applicants that either the bonus was to be paid in pursuance of settlement dated 7th- May, 1.981 or otherwise. In any case, the present demand of the applicants cannot be founded on the basis of settlement dated 7th June, 1981 particularly when the General Secretary, of the C. B. A., Union has himself deposed in this Court that the settlement .Dated 7th May. 1981 was only for the year 1980-81 and no bonus for 1981- 82 was payable under this settlement and further more that the demand for 1981-82 was subsequently raised without any settlement and now it is still under negotiations and decision through Arbitrator by settlement dated 31st March, 1983.
9. I would now examine if the present applications under section 51 of the I. R.
0., 1969 would be competent even on the basis of notice dated 6th May, 1982. The photostat copy of this notice has been placed on record by the applicants as Annexure A/2. This is signed only by one person from the side of the respondent. It is neither on the basis of any charter of demands nor it is a settlement as contemplated by I.R.O., 1969 nor it can be termed as an award recorded by the Arbitrator, Labour Court or the Labour Tribunal. In fact, it is a one-sided notice and so a claim on the basis of such notice cannot be got enforced through the proceedings under section 51 of I. R.
0., 1969. In this view of the matter, the application of the applicants would be incompetent under section 31 of I.R.O., 1969.
10. I would repeat here that the claim of the applicants can neither be founded on the settlement dated 7th May, 1981 nor the same can be based on the notice dated 6th May, 1982 at least to maintain the present applications under section 51 of I. R..
0., 1969. It is an undisputed fact that the bonus can either be statutory as contemplated by S.O. 10- C or it can be on the basis of a settlement, or an award or ex gratia. The plea of the management is that during the years 1981-82 they have sustained losses and this plea has attempted to be proved by their Balance-sheets and according to it the respondent had sustained substantial loss as certified by the Chartered Accountants. This has not been repudiated on behalf of the applicants nor any evidence has been brought to show that the respondent had earned profits. Accordingly, this bonus cannot be claimed as profit bonus, Moreover, as rightly submitted by Mr. Ghani, the dispute was raised by individual applicants prior to the close of the financial year and so the same was not permitted by law. In any case, this claim is not warranted by S. O. 10-C. As held above, it is also not based on the settlement dated 7th May, 1981 and is also contrary to the settlement dated 31st March, 1983. No award has also been passed by any Authority referred to in the I. R.
0. And so this claim is also not based on the basis of any award. The last class of the bonus would be ex gratia and firstly in view of the specific denial of the respondent, it is also not so, and, even otherwise the ex gratia bonus cannot be claimed as of right by any person as it is the sweet will of the management to pay it to any one or to deny any one. Though the applicants have failed to establish that this ex gratia bonus was paid to any employee but even if it is so pleaded, it cannot create any vested right in the applicants to claim the same as of right. One Abdul Waheed has been examined by the applicants to prove that the workers have been paid bonus for the year 1981-82 but on confrontation of the full and final slip dated 22nd November, 1982 on behalf of the respondent, it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that even this witness was not paid any amount towards bonus of the year 1981-82. The respondent has also pleaded that in fact notice dated 6th May, 1982 was pasted under compelling circumstances created by the porkers and since there was serious law and order situation in the mill in order to save the mill and to claim down the workers, the notice was pasted and this plea of the management has also been fully supported by the General Secretary of the C.B.A., Union. Accordingly, this notice would also not be of any legal effect and so the applicants cannot base their claim of such a notice got pasted under unlawful pressure and coercion.
11. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in these applications and so all these applications are hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.