1. FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave of this Court against three of the nine findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal consisting of Mr. S. Mahmood Raza who dealt with an industrial dispute between Messrs Ghaffur Textile Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Management) and The Ghaffur Textile Mill Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union).
2. The said three findings relate respectively to payment of bonus, house rent allowance and re- instatement of 64 workers who had been discharged from service by the Management.
3. Issue No. 1 This issue is stated in the reference as follows:---- "Whether the workers be paid any bonus; if so, to what extent?
4. This issue relates to the bonus for the year 1956-57. It appears from the record that there was a strike in 1955 and in the settlement arrived at before the Labour Commissioner in the month of June 1955 it was decided that the Management should pay bonus for the previous 12 months. The Management thereafter paid bonus for the year 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 at the rate of Rs. 54, Rs. 55 and Rs. 55 respectively. Although the financial year of the Mill is the calendar year, yet for the purpose of payment of bonus 12 months are reckoned from June to May of every year.
5. The case for the Union was that (i) the Mill had made huge profits in the year 1957 and, therefore, the Management should pay them two months' basic wages as bonus for that year and (ii) that the "bonus year" ended on 31st December 1957 and hence they should be paid full bonus for the year 1957.
6. The case for the Management was that in accordance with the terms of the settlement they had already paid bonus for the year 1956-57 at the flat rate of Rs. 55 and that in any event the margin of profit for the year 1957 was sufficient to justify the demand of the Union.
7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties made an Award in the following terms: "Having regard to the huge profit earned by the Mill in the year ending 31st December 1957, I am of opinion that the demand of the workers for payment of 2 months wages as bonus for the year ending 31-12-57 is not unjustified. I would, therefore, allow the workers bonus for the year ending 31- 12-57 at the rate equal to li of their basic wages. The Mill has already paid bonus for the period January to 31st May 1957. It will pay to the workers at the rate allowed by me for the period June to December 1957."
8. The real dispute, therefore, under this issue is as the quantum of bonus.
9. The balance-sheets filed by the Management show that in the year 1956 and 1957 the Mill earned a profit of Rs. 23,162-3-3 and Rs. 3,17,949.14 respectively.
10. At this stage it will be relevant to set out the method adopted by the Tribunal in determining Rs.
11. 3,53,419-5-9 as the profit for the year 1957.
12. Gross profit for the year 1955Rs. 2,22,307-4-6 Less liabilities for income-taxRs. 2,10,000-0-0 and dividends.
13. Net ProfitRs. 12,307-4-6 Gross profit for the year 1956Rs. 23,162-3-3 Gross profit for the year 1957Rs. 3,17,949-14-0 TotalRs. 3,53,149-5-9 The total profit of the year 1957 is thus calculated in the Award of the Tribunal.
14. The learned counsel for the Management has contended that the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that profit for the year 1957 is Rs. 3,53,419-5-9 has not made provisions for payment of the Income-tax and the dividends. According to him after payment of those liabilities the net profit would be reduced to Rs. 87,000. Ho has further submitted that the Award if implemented would .Mean an expenditure of Rs. 1,16,000.
15. No one has appeared before us on behalf of the Union.
16. The fact, however, remains that in deciding what amount was available as surplus for the relevant year, the income-tax, calculated on the trading profit of the year must be deducted are a prior charge from the profits. The Tribunal should have also taken into account the amounts payable as dividends.
17. The Managements' grievance that adequate provision baa not been made in respect of the liabilities which come to a substantial figure is not, therefore, without substance. The Tribunal did not even attempt to ascertain as to what were the liabilities of the Mill for the year 1957. It is thus clear that the increased bonus granted in this case is not based on any proper calculations and hence it cannot be sustained.
18. Issue No. 44 This relates to house rent allowance. The Union demands Rs. 15 as house rent for each workman.
19. The case of the Union under this issue is that as Messrs Bawany, Daud and Adamji Mills, Dalmia Cement Factory, Karachi, and the Municipal Corporation give free quarters to their workers, they are entitled to house rent allowance in lieu of free quarters. The case of the Management is that the workers are living close to the Mill area and hence they are not entitled to any house rent allowance.
20. The Tribunal deals with this issue as follows:----- "After considering the arguments of the parties and various awards relied on by them I find that the general trend of the views seems to be that either the house-rent allowance or the Karachi Compensatory allowance should be given. In most of the cases where this demand was rejected, either the concern had provided free quarters or had undertaken to do so within a stated period.
21. There can absolutely be no doubt that in Karachi there is a great dirth (sic) of living accommodation and the house rent is very high."
22. The Tribunal also found that there was nothing to show that basic wages included house rent allowance. He, therefore, made the following Award:--- "I am of opinion that the house-rent allowance at the rate of Rs. 5 per cent. Of basic pay with a minimum of Rs. 5 should be allowed to the workers."
23. The Tribunal is wrong to think that it is always the function of the Management to provide accommodation for its workers. There can be, however, no doubt that in appropriate cases the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the grievance about housing accommodation and to give relief in that behalf. But in such cases the Tribunal must be satisfied that having regard to the special feature of the problem the employers should either provide quarters or pay house rent allowance. For example if the Mill is located in a rural area and the workers have to come to work from along distance, then in such circumstances the a Tribunal will not ignore a claim for house rent allowance, problem the Tribunal will consider whether house rent is included in the basic wages and dearness allowance.
24. In the present case, the Management led evidence to show that the workers lived within a distance of one mile from the Mill. The Union, however, adduced no evidence in rebuttal. Nor did they lead any evidence to show that the accommodation was scarce or expensive. Hence on merits the Award regarding house rent allowance cannot be upheld.
25. Issue No. 7: "Whether the discharge of 64 workmen during the past one year is justified and warranted"?
26. The case for the Management was that by an agreement dated the 27th February 1958 the case of 32 workers had been referred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner for arbitration and that the said Arbitrator by his Award held that the discharge of the said workers was valid and proper.
27. With regard to the remaining 32 workers their contention was that in the absence of proper and complete description they could locate only 13 of them and that those 13 were properly dismissed from service. As for the rest they express their willingness to produce the relevant charge-sheets and orders of dismissal on receipt of sufficient data from the Union.
28. The Tribunal held that the Award of the Labour Commissioner did not show that the workers who bad been dismissed before 27th February 1958 were dismissed justifiably.
29. The Tribunal further found (i) that in each case in which a copy of the order of dismissal was filed the dismissing authority was the Labour Officer who, however, under the Standing Orders was not competent to dismiss a worker; and (ii) that it was the duty of the Mill to locate the other workers whom they had discharged from service.
30. In this view of the matter the Tribunal ordered reinstate--ment of all the 64 workers with effect from the date of their discharge and further ordered that they would be entitled to get 50 % of their wages till the time they were re-instated.
31. The learned counsel for the Management has rightly contended that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Award of Labour Commissioner did not fully deal with the case of 32 workers who had been discharged prior to 27th February 1958.
32. Clause (5) of the terms of settlement dated 30th January 1958 was as follows:--- "Regarding disputed workmen detailed in Union's letters Nos. KTLU/0013/58 and KTLU/8/58 dated 8th January 1958 and 21st January 1958 respectively it has been agreed to by the Management and the Union that their cases will be mutually discussed and decided amongst themselves and fn case any difference of opinion arises, both will agree for an arbitrator whose decision will be final and binding on both parties within a week from to date."
33. The Award of the Labour Commissioner dated 5th April 1958 is in these terms: "Regarding item No. 5 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 30th January 1958 regarding victimisation of the workers it has been found that the workers were discharged after proper charge-sheet. Hence it cannot be termed as victimisation. However if the discharged workers have any dues with the Management, the Management is asked to pay off such workers within a fortnight of the receipt of the Award."
34. On the 10th May 1958 when the present dispute was referred to the Tribunal, the Award of the Labour Commissioner had become final and binding according to the terms of settlement.
35. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in ignoring the Award of the Labour Commissioner. Out of the remaining workers the Management could file papers with regard to 13 of them. We are, however, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that for lack of better particulars the Management was unable to file the papers in connection with the dismissal of the remaining workers. In most cases the card number of workers and in some cases the departments to which they belonged were given. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly pointed out that if the Management had produced their register it would not have been difficult to locate those workers. Furthermore, out of the 13 workers whose records have been filed we find that in some cases order of dismissal had not been passed by a competent authority. The fact, however, remains that their employment was terminable on a month's notice. Therefore at the most the compensation which they could claim in law for dismissal without notice might be a month's wages.
36. We, therefore, see no justification to maintain the Award of the Tribunal with regard to their re- instatement and payment to them of 50 % of wages till the time of their re-instatement.
37. We think that these workers cannot be allowed any more relief than would have been open to them had their services been terminated without cause shown. In other words, their claim will be limited to a month's wages in lieu of notice as is admissible under the general law of master and servant.
38. We accordingly allow this appeal and direct that the Award be varied as under----
(i) that the workers will be entitled to claim bonus at the rate admitted by the Management ;
(ii) that the claim for house rent allowance be rejected; and
(iii) that the relief to the workers who were dismissed or discharged after the 27th February 1958 will be limited to the payment to each one of them of one month's wages at the rate payable to him at the time of his dismissal or discharge.
39. As no one has appeared for the Union we make no order as to costs.