DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned First; Labour Court, Karachi dated October 14, 19'11, whereby, she learned Court granted an allowance of 71/2% House Rent to the employees of S. I.
T. E., who were getting pay up to Rs. 300per month. The minimum allowance granted was Rs. 5.00 per month. The learned Court also ordered that, the Organization should not charge rent from the employees ' of the same category. i.e., getting up to Rs. 300.00 per month, whom it had provided accommodation.
2. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Ghulam Win, the learned Representative, for the appellant, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the impugned award. It runs as under:- "The contention, of Mr. Ghulam Hasan that the deposition of General Secretary is not sufficient to uphold the demand of House Rent Allowance is correct but that does not mean that this Court may close its eyes even in those matters which are apparent. I those hard days it is difficult to believe that an employee can rent a house with a meagre pay between Rs. 104 and Rs. 200. This appears to be the reason why the other organisations have allowed these facilities. The demand of House Rent Allowance at Rs. 7.5 for employees getting pay up to Rs. 300 per month appears to be justified. I will therefore allow this allowance at the rate of 71/2 %, to such employees of, the S.I.T.E. I have given 71/2 % because that is the rate at which this allowance is admissible to the employees of Government aid Municipal Corporation. This allowance will be subject to minimum of Rs. 5 for the same reason. The organisation should not charge refit from those employees of this category whom it has provided accommodation."
3. Mr. Ghulam 1-iasaa, the learned Representative for the appellant relied on certain authorities pf the Supreme Court of Pakistan in support of his contention that where there was no evidence to support the conclusion of the learned Court, it would be deemed to have acted mainly on sympathetic speculation. In this connection, he relied on the case of National & Grindlays Bank, Limited, Chittagong and 4 others v. The East Pakistan Bank Employees' Union, Chittagong and 2 others (1961 L L C 17) and Pakistan River Steamers Limited v. The Province of East Pakistan and others (1961 L L C 26). Mr. Ghulam Hasan also relied on the case of Karnaphully Paper Mills Limited v.
Workers' Union (1961 PLC 991), in support of his contention that there being no evidence the learned Court acted only out of goodness of his heart.
4. The admitted position is that the Sind Industrial Trading Estate Limited is a non-profit making Company. I have gone through the evidence of Ghulam Akbar: All that he has stated in respect of this demand is as under:- "The S. I. T. E. has provided accommodation for 96 workers at the rate of 10 % of their basic " pay. The remaining employees are not giver. House Rent Allowance. The- employees living In the accommodation provided by tile S. I. T. E. -should be given free electricity gas and water facilities."
5. This is all that Ghulam Akbar has stated. He has not stated as to why the employees should be given House Rent Allowance. There is no evidence what so ever, to lend support to the conclusion that since the employment of certain categories of employees the rent had been increased in Karachi or that there is further shortage of houses in Karachi since these categories employed by S. I. T. E. The last witness is Abdul Aziz. He is a Stenographer ill W. P. I. D. C. He stated in respect of this demand as under:-"Wt are paid House Rent Allowance @ 5 % of the Consolidated pay, vide Exh. P.
6."
6. West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation is a profit-making concern. There is no comparison between the W. P.1. D. C. and S. I. T. E. To apply the analogy of W.P.I.D.C. to S. 1. T. E. will be a false analogy within the principle laid down in the case of Pakistan Petroleum Workers' federation, Karachi v. Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of Pakistan Limited, Karachi and 7 others (PLD 1961 SC 479).
7. There being no evidence to support the demand as to House Rent Allowance, the award of the learned Court on this ground must be set aside.
8. So far as the, award restraining the Management (S. I. T. E.) to realize rant from the employees who were getting up to Rs. 300 per month is concerned, this is not based on any demand. The award in respect of this order is also set aside.
9. While disposing of this appeal I may observe, as was pointed out by Mr. Rashid, the learned Representative for the workers, that the Managing Director, Mr. Abdullah, J. Memon had made a recommendation on 17th July 1971, to the Board to follow the same Rule as in Government Organizations, as regards House Rent Allowance, that it is open to the Board tat consider the recommendation of the Managing Director irrespective of the decision that I have given in this appeal.