DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated August 6, 1972, whereby the leamed Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, allowed the application of the Bank of Bahawalpur Employees* Union under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), by holding that the re-designation of the Guards as Watchmen and the increase in their duty hours from 8 to l2 hours every day, was illegal and improper. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The Bank had employed some persons to act as Guards. On 14th September 1966, the Establishment Manager of the Bank issued a letter (Exh. P. Ws. 1/4), to the Bank Managers informing them that the Guards would be re-designated as Watchmen/Chowkidars. It is alleged by the Union that prior to this letter, the Guards were working only for 8 hours, but thereafter they were made to work for l2 hours. It is alleged by the Union that though the Guards were re- desigaated as Watchmen their duties remained the same. It was specifically urged by the Union in para.9 of the application under section 34 of the Ordinance that the act of the Bank was void under Clause 3 of the Bank of Bahawalpur Limited Staff Bye-Laws. Under Bye-Law 3, "no new rule or alteration in any existing rule shall have any force until passed as a Resolution of the Board of Directors and issued in the form of an Administration Circular . . In other words, their case was that the letter issued by the Establishment Manager did not have the support of the Resolution of the Board of Directors.
3. The case of 1he Bank was that the application under section 34 of Ordinance was not maintainable, inasmuch as there was no breach or violation of any law which guaranteed any right to the Union. The Bank maintained that the Guards did not have to work for l2 hours without any break. It is noteworthy that there is no specific allegation in the written Statement that the Board of Directors had changed the rules whereby the Guards could be re-designated as Watchmen or that their working hours could be changed from 8 hours to l2 hours.
4. Mr. M. A. Ansari, the learned Representative for the Bank, very streneously contended that there being no violation of any right guaranteed or secured to the Ucion, the application under section 34 of the Ordinance was not maintainable. In this connection, the leamed Representative contended that the West Pakistan Shops aed Estbalishment Ordinance, 1969, did not apply to Watchmen, so as to attract the provision of section 8 of the Ordinance, which lays down the working hours for an adult employee.
5. The first question that requires consideration is as to whether the re- designation of the name of 'Guard' as 'Watchman* has been dealt with by Competent Authority. The Bank of Bahawalpur Limited has Staff Bye-Laws. Under Bye-Laws 3 of the said Bye-Laws the Board of Directors have reserved the right of changing or repealing any of the Bye-Laws from time to time. Bye- Law 3, also provides that no new rule or alteration in any existing rule shall have any force until passed as a Resolution of the Board of Directors and issued m the form of an Administrative Circular and a copy thereof was made available for inspection to every employee. The Circular was to take effect from the date it was circularised. Bye-Law 9 of the rules deals with the scales of pay for employees It has divided the scales of pay_ of different categories from 'A' to 'E' Category 'E' deals with 'Subordinate Staff*. It would be useful to reproduce Cotegory 'E* which is as follows :-- "Subordinate Stqff: Jamadars, Daftries and Bank's Guards Peons, Chowkidars and Malis ... Sweepers and other Inferior Staff Rs. 40 --2--60--EB--2i--85 Rs. 35--2--45--EB--2*--75 Rs. 25--1--30-EB-2--40." Senior Jamadars, Motor Drivers, and Electricians. ... Rs. 60--3--90 6. It is clear from Bye-Law 9, Category *E', that Chowkidars and Bank Guards belong to two different categories, having different scales of pay. The admitted position is that the so-called Watchmen or Chowkidars are not drawing the same pay as that of Bank Guards, given in Category 'E*. Bye-Law 9, Category *E* of the Rules is a very fundamental and important rule, which governs the emoluments of the woikmen concerned. Any change in the said Rule was subject to a Resolution of the Board of Directors. The Union has specifically drawn the attention tf the Management to rule 3 of the Bye-Laws. The Management should have stated if a Resolution was passed by the Board of Directors along *vith the date when it was passed.
7. On behalf of the Management, Mr. Mohammad Sadiq their Staff Officer had filed his affidavit in support of the allegation of the Management. It is noteworthy that Mr. Monammad S