DECISION This is an appeal under section 37 of the I. R. O. against the rejection of some of the demands.
2. The appellant Union raised an industrial dispute by serving notices of demands and strike. Conciliation proceedings failed and so an application was made to the Labour Court. The Union had raised ten demands. Out of them four demands i. e. Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 10 were rejected.
Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
3. Demand No. 2 pertains to bonus. The Union claimed bonus equivalent to 1} months salary. This demand was reje:ted for want of proof. I entirely agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court. There is not an iota of evidence as to the amount of profit made by the Company, What was stated was that the Company bad made huge profit. In the first place there is no evidence to support this argument. Secondly a vague and general statement is not enough. The amount oft profit which was made by the Company ought to have been established^ in order to judge the reasonableness of the demand. | 4. Demands Nos. 4 and 5 relates to House Rent and Conveyance Allowance. The Union demanded Rs. 20 as House Rent Allowance and Rs. 15 as Conveyance Allowance. These demands were rejected on the ground that no evidence of comparable concerns had been produced nor the General Secretary had been able to show that the employees were living in rented house at such a distance from the factory that they had to incur expenses. In my view the amount which has been demanded by the Union is not justified but looking to the general trend in the rent of houses and the fare charged by the transporters I allow in all Rs 15 per month oh both these counts. In other words Rs. 15 will include house rent as well as conveyance allowance.
5. Taking up Demand No. 10, the Union claimed Rs. 15 as annual increment. This demand was rejected on the ground that the Union had not been able to produce aDy evidence in support of the demand. It was also pointed out that the Government had already announced Rs. 85 as Cost of Living Allowance. I see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the Labour Court. Moreover the grant of annual increment without providing the maximum stage will be ridiculous.
6. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed with regard to Demands No. 4 and 5 to the extent indicated and the award of the Labour Court is modified accordingly.