DECISION This is a counter-appeal filed by William Son & Co. Ltd. Workmen Union, (hereinafter called the Union) I, have heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant-Union. He contended that the demand about bonus related to the years 1970 and 1971 and not for 1972. It is so, but the Union having accepted bonus for the year 1972, without any reservation, will be deemed to have given up its demand for the years 1970 and 1971. The admitted position is that they have received without any reservation bonus for the year 1972, Moreover, they cannot claim bonus for the accounting period that has closed.
2. There is no ground for giving an increase of 10 %. The Management bias already granted increase of 5 %, which the Union accepted. I think that the award on this point is reasonable.
3. So far as Dearness Allowance is concerned, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that Dearness Allowance of Rs: 15.00 granted by the Government is sufficient.
4. The learned Labour Court rightly rejected the demand of Attend--ance Allowance here is no evidence that Attendance Allowance is paid by other comparable concerns.
5. The conclusion of the learned Labour Court that leave granted by the Management is sufficient and it cannot be increased is justified in the absence of any evidence of comparable concern, which grants more leave.
6. The demand of increase in the pay of operators of Rs. 20.00 cannot take the place of evidence.
No reason has been given as to why the pay should be increased by Rs. 20.00. Mere fact that the other side led no evidence is not a justification for granting the increase in pay.
7. Demand No. 12, relates to supply of half a seer of milk per day and Rs. 15.00 per month as allowance to the worker working in the Impregnation section of the Company on the ground of health. No worker, however, from this section was produced to show that his health had suffered.
8. The appeal, for the reasons given above, is dismissed.