DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dated March 22, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court accepted some of the demands and rejected the others. The Government of Sind on 8th January 1973, referred the dispute under section 32(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), to Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, for adjudication. The Government also prohibited the strike which had started from 27th November 1972.
2. Mr. Khalid Jamil, the learned Advocate for the appellant, has challenged the award only in respect of bonus and the award for wages during the period that the workmen were on strike.
3. It is contended by Mr. Khalid Jamil that the learned Labour Court should not have given an award in respect of past years. The demands were raised only towards the end of 1972. In this connection, it would be useful to reproduce the finding of the learned Labour Court on bonus and profit. It runs as under :-- "Demands Nos. 5 & 6.--Bonus and Profit.--Ordinarily workmen are not entitled to any bonus unless the industry makes substantial profit in a particular year. There is a statutory provision in Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as to Bonus. Section 10(c) says that every employer making profit in any year shall pay for that year Bonus to workmen who have been in his employment in that year for a continuous period of not less than ninety days, in addition to the wages. The management should give Bonus to the workmen as provided in Standing Order 10(c). The industry had profits before 1970-71 as admitted by Abdul Majid, Partner. The learned Representative of the Management also conceded in his arguments that they would get bonus as construed by law. This demand is therefore accepted and it be implemented in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 10-C."
4. I do not construe the award on bonus and profit to mean that the leamed Labour Court had awarded bonus for past years. All that he had held is that the workmen will get bonus in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance). Standing Order 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance has not been given retrospective effect. It was introduced in April 1972.
Therefore, the workmen will be entitled to get bonus for the year 1972 in accordance with the statutory provision of Standing Order 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance. In this connection, reference may also be made to the Statement of Claim filed by the Central Card Board Industries Workers* Union (hereinafter called the Union), in respect of Demands Nos. 5 and 6. It ruas as under : -- "Two months' salary as Bonus for the period from 1968 is in respect of past Bonuses. It may be pointed out that only in 1971, fifteen days* wages was paid as Bonus and eleven days' leave encashment was allowed.'* 5. It would appear from the above Statement of Claim on behalf of the Union that the claim for bonus was not for 1971, but for years previous to 1971. As a general rule demands for previous years bonus have been rejected by Industrial Courts. There is a good reason for this view. In the first place, claim after a number of years for bonus for past years would show that the workers were not serious and had no grievance in respect of bonus. If the Union raised it after some years, it would only show that the demand for bonus was merely formal demand, ln the second place, balance-sheets of Public Companies or of Private Companies close every year. The Profit,5 and Loss Account of the Companies settle yearly. If there is a profit, thej same is distributed among the partners or invested for further improvement' of the concern. In these circumstances, an establishment will be hardly in a position to meet the fresh liability for payment of bonus. The workers must blame themselves for sleeping over their right, if any, for so long. It would be unfair to allow to re-open the issue of bonus for past years. I would interpret the order of the learned Labour Court and hold that the workers would be entitled to bonus in accordance with Standing Order 10- C of the Standing Orders Ordinance for 1972.
6. In the second place, it was contended by Mr. Khalid Jamil, the learned Representative for the appellant, that the learned Labour Court should not have awarded wages to the workers for the period that they were on strike. In this connection, he submitted that the Union did not make any application during the pendency of the proceedings before it that the Court should grant wages to the workers for the period that they were on strike.
Had they given such an application, the Management would have been in a position to show that even if the strike was legal, the workers were not justified to resort to such a long strike at the cost of the Management. There is admittedly, no prayer for such relief. A relief for wages does not follow from the demands raised by the Union. The learned Labour Court should, therefore, not have granted wages for the period that the workers were on strike. Such an award is likely to encourage strike. It cannot be conducive to industrial peace and prosperity. I would, however, award Rs. 500 00 as costs. This would compensate the workers to some extent.
7. The award of the learned Labour Court is modified to the extent I have observed earlier.