' This is an appeal filed by the Sind Road Transport Corporation against the impugned order passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, dated 28-4-1983.
2. The facts are that S.R.T.C. Workers Union filed an application under section 34, I.R.O., 1969, against the S.R.T.C. Challenging the circular, copy A/1 and further claiming certain rights. The union claimed that workers of S.R.T.C. Were entitled to gratuity on retirement. Termination of service or on retrenchment at the rate of 30 days wages for each completed year or part thereof beyond 6 months and that all employees of Grade-II and upwards were to get in each year annual leave for 30 days on full pay and for another 30 days on half-pay while the employees below Grade-V were to get each year annual leave for 15 days on full pay and for another 15 days on half-pay. Similarly, the employees were to get sick leave. That the leave on half-pay and sick leave could be accumulated without limit while the leave for full pay could be accumulated upto 90 days. These entitlements were said to have become customary and were protected under the Law as they were in force since 1968. The cause for filing this application was a circular a copy A/1 issued by the S.R.T.C. To the effect that the gratuity would be payable at the rate of wages for 20 days per year and unavailed annual leave can be accumulated upto 20 days and sick leave cannot be accumulated. This circular was challenged on the ground that an industrial dispute was pending between the parties since 7-6-1980 and during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings the terms and conditions of service of the workmen could not be changed.
3. The S.R.T.C. In its reply statement challenged the stand of the union to be barred by a res judicata and that the workers were entitled to gratuity, annual leave and sick leave according to the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and the Factories Act. Circular copy A/1, in question, was said to be based on an order passed by the Labour Court on 9-8-1981 in an appeal under the payment of Wages Act.
4. I have heard Mr. Races Mushtaq, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Ishaque Abbasi, Advocate, for the respondent. Mr. Mushtaq while arguing the appeal stated that a Labour Court could not give different interpretation contrary to law as the matters pertaining to leave, gratuity and sick leave were governed under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance and the Factories Act. He also stated that no custom or usage has been established by the respondent union. These 2 points were made by the learned counsel of the appellants. The learned counsel of the appellants did not make the mention to its circular A/1 which was based on the decision of the Labour Court, dated 9- 8-1981 in an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act.
5. In the evidence led in the Labour Court, the respondent union produced through its General Secretary, Muhammad Bashir, copy All of the settlement alongwith order of Road Transport Corporation that the said settlement be implemented. It is mentioned in the said settlement, A/3 vide Demand No.5, that the gratuity to the workmen shall be paid as was being paid to the officers under the S.R.T.C. Gratuity Rules, 1968. 'These Rules were not produced. But the witness, Bashir in his affidavit averred that workers of the S.R.T.C. Had been receiving gratuity equal to the wages for 30 days for each year. Although the Rules of 1968 were not produced but perhaps the gratuity was given according to that Rules as 30 days wages for each completed. Year. The respondent union produced office orders, copies A/5 to A/10 showing that for Ghulam Hussain and Nabi Bux, their leave on full pay was accumulated on 76 and 42 days, respectively. So, by evidence, the union has shown that unavailed earned leave on full pay for 90 days could be encashed while no limit for encashment of unavailed leave on half-pay. However, sick leave could not be encashed.
6. On the basis of evidence before the Labour Court, the Presiding Officer made the decision in accordance with the evidence so led by the parties. The Labour Court declared the circular to be illegal presumably because the conciliation proceedings were pending before the Conciliator and they were not decided and since the conciliation proceedings were pending these orders cannot be trusted on the workers.
7. My observations while disposing of this appeal is that if the usage, or the Rules of the S.R.T.C. 1968, were regularly adopted by the S.R.T.C. And the same were beneficial to the workers, may be adopted or else the Law as enunciated in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, should be followed.
8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with the above observations.