DECISION This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. II, dated the 6th of February 1974 in an application under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance') whereby the learned Court granted some of the demands and rejected the others. The appellant-Union bad made two other applications also. One under section 47 and the other under section 34 of the Ordinance. The learned Court by consent of the parties disposed of all the three applications by the Order dated the 6th of February 1947. It may be mentioned that no appeal lies against an order passed under section 47 or 34 of the Ordinance.
This order, therefore, would be confined only to the main application under section 32(1-A).
2. The Union had in all made 14 demands. Mr. K. R. Jan the learned Representative for the appellant has addressed me on all the demands except demand No. 9 regarding night shift allowance and demand No. 11 about Workers' Participation Fund. Before I deal with the submissions made by Mr. Jan it would be useful to dispose of the contention that Messrs Pakistan Shipping Line Ltd., Messrs Mackinnon, Mackenzie & Co. Of Pakistan Ltd., Messrs Forbes Campbell & Co. 'Ltd, are comparable concerns. The learned Court rightly came to the conclusion that none of these concerns can be said to be comparable concerns. In this connection the learned Court rightly considered the extent of the business carried on by these concerns and the respondent-Company, the capital invested by them, the nature of business carried on by them, the strength of their A Labour Force, their long standing and the prospects of the future. The approach of the Labour Court is not open to any serious criticism in this respect. I would hold that these concerns cannot be said to be comparable concerns. The concern in question is a Private Limited Company while the concerns, which are said to be comparable are all Public Limited Companies. It was contended by Mr. Jan that the learned Court was not right in discarding the example of these concerns on the ground that in respect of Messrs Mackinnon, Mackenzie & Co. Of Pakistan Ltd, and Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd., no one from the Companies has been produced. Mr. Jan contended that the Settlement of these two concerns, having been exhibited it was not open to the respondent to challenge the contents of their Settlements. There is not much force in this contention. Evidence Act, it is well settled is not applicable to Industrial adjudication. Moreover, unless some one from the Company has been produced it was not possible to find out the extent of the business that these two concerns were doing. It was not possible to find out the number of employees these two concerns employed.
Questions were put to the General Secretary to find out the business these two concerns were doing but the General Secretary was not in a position to enlighten the Representative of the respondent therefore the conclusion of the learned Court that in the absence of any one from the Company of the said two concerns it was not possible to treat these two concerns as Comparable Concerns cannot be contested.
3. I would now proceed to deal with 'each demand separately and the contention of Mr. K. R. Jan.
Demand No. 1 is divided into two parts. 1(a) is in respect of employee drawing less than Its 140 per month as wages. The respondent has already implemented this demand with retrospective effect from the la of July 1969. Demand No. I (h) is for fixing the grade of salary. In fixing the Wage Structure industrial adjudication has to take a long, range view and it has to determine and examine very carefully the impact of were structure oil tile financial position of the establishment.
Where the Curt finds that the business was on the decline the question o fixing age structure does not arise. It is true that the fail of East Pakistan has not directly affected the respondent but the nature of the business of the respondent concern is such that it must have been affected indirectly.
The respondent concern had no establishment of its own in East Pakistan and therefore, was not directly affected by separation of East Pakistan.
4. Demand No. 2 relates to Medical Facilities, fir the workman, for his were and the children. There was only one question put in the cross-- examination of the General Secretary, Mr. Shahid Ali. The answer is as under: "After institution of this case, the respondents have been given Medical Facilities in deserving cases to the members of the family of their workmen, if the workman applies for it."
There is no other cross-examination on the demand of Medical Facilities. The demand as regards Medical Facilities for were, self and children is allowed. The Company should have a Panel of three Doctors to whom the case of the workmen or his were and children may be referred the cost of the medicines will be paid by the Company on production of proof.
5. Demand No. 3 is retarding Provident Fund Trust. No case for Provident Fund Trust has been made out by the Union. Moreover, as I am t inclined to grant Gratuity, the question of Provident Fund would not arise. The demand of Provident Fund 'Trust is, therefore, disallowed.
6. Demand. No. 4 relates to Leaves and Holidays. The Union has demanded ten days Casual Leave in a year. An employee would be entitled to three days leave without previous approval i.e. To say on post facto approval and five days at a time with prior approval. Sick leave of tea days for minor illness and thirty days for prolonged sickness in a year is allowed. Earned leave of one month in a year accumulable for three years is allowed effective from 1971. All Government Gazetted Holidays including the optional holidays shall be observed as close paid holidays in a year. On this question an agreement was arrived at between the Union and the Company on the 28th of September 1972, which is exhibited A. W. 1/1 at page 97 of the record of the Labour Court. I would accept the demand in terns of the agreement dated the 28th of September 1972 between th--e parties
7. Demand No. 5 relates to Bonus for three months gross salary. The Union has failed to make out a case for Bonus of three months gross salary which to be effective from 1971. It is, therefore, disallowed. .
8. Demand No. 6 relates to Gratuity. The Union demanded after six months' service Gratuity of one, month gross-salary last drawn for each year service on termination of services payable to the employee or his heir or successor. Under Standing Order 6 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1963, an employee is entitled to twenty days wages calculated oil the basis of wages admissible to him in the last month of service if lie is a fixed-rated workman or the highest pay drawn by him during the last twelve months if he is a piece-rated workman for every completed year of service or any part there of in excess of six months. I would accept the demand about Gratuity as laid down under Standing Order 12(6) of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968.
9. Demand No. 7 relates to House Rent. The case of the Company is that House Rent is included in the salary paid to the employees. This is so. Moreover the witness on behalf of the Company has not been cross-- examined on this point. I would, in these circumstances, disallow the demand for House Rent.
10. Demand No. 8 is about Conveyance Allowance. In this con--nection I would reproduce the observation of the Chairman, Central Industrial Court, Mr: M. Khurshid Zaman in Pakistan Battery Employees Union v. Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Company, Karachi. (1962 PLC 869) His observation runs as under: "It is also an established practice in most of the industrial establishments that some conveyance allowance is paid to those workers who live at a distance of more than 3 miles from the place of their work."
The case of the Company was that "the Offices of the respondent are situated in a central locality from where conveyance is easily available. Further due to the circular railway the conveyance has become cheaper. This is, to my mind, not adequate reply to demand of Conveyance Allowance. I would allow four annals (twenty-five paisas) per working day as Conveyance' Allowance payable from the Ist of April 1972. The Demand Notice was,given on the 20th of April 1972. The Company would pay Conveyance Allowance from that date.
11. Demand No. 9 relates to Night Work Allowance. Mr. K. R. Jan did not press this demand. It is, accordingly, disallowed.
12. Demand No. 10 relates to payment of over-time work. The respondent-Company is willing to pay wages at double rate for Sundays and holydays but is not willing to give a holiday in lieu of Sunday or any other holiday because of the nature of the work of the respondent, which is such that the workmen have to work when Steamers arrived. There is no fixed duty day for the workers of the respondent-Company. I would accept Demand No. 10 in terms of the offer made by the Company.
13. Demand No. 11 relates to Workers' Participation Fund. The proper forum is not the Labour Court for enforcement of the provisions of Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968. If the Company has not enforced the provision of the said Act a complaint lies to the Central Government and not as a Demand to the Labour Court.
14. Demand No. 12 relates to Interest Free Loans. There is no good reason to allow loan and that also interest free. The Demand is, accordingly, disallowed.
15. Demand No. 13 is about retirement. The Company is willing to accept the demand about age at which an employee will retire i.e. To say at the age of 60 years or on completion of thirty years service, whichever is earlier, but is not willing to pay Gratuity at the rate demanded by the Union. I would award 20 days' wages per year of service as Gratuity to persons retiring at the age of sixty years or on completion of thirty years of service, whichever is earlier. Gratuity amount to be calculated on the same basis as provided in Standing, Order 12(6) of W. P. I. & C. E. (Standing Order)
Ordinance.
16. Demand No. 14 is divided into four demands. Demand No. 14(a) relates to the issuance of appointment letter, identity cards booklet for leave and over-time record. This the company is willing to carry out Demands Nos. 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d) are too general to be granted. No specific claim has been pointed out where an employee may have been victimized.
17. For the reasons given above the award of the learned Labour Court is set aside and modified to the extent mentioned above.