JUDGMENT This is an appeal against an award dated 7-1-1975 of Punjab 'Labour Court No. 3 rejecting demand No. 1 i. e. recreation allowance equal to 2 months' wages plus Rs. 85 as cost of living allowance for each month, raised by the appellant-Union.
2. Rehmania Textile Mills and Rehmania Textile (Silk) Mills are owned by the sam proprietors. An industrial dispute arose between th Demand No. 1.---Recreation allowance equal to 2 months' wages plus Rs. 85 as cost of living allowance for each month may be given to the employees. Demand No. 2.--One suit length of cloth manufactured in the Mills may be given to each employee. Strike Notice was served on the respondent on 10-8-1974. Conciliation proceedings had also taken place but no settlement could be arrived at. The appellant-Union thereupon filed an application under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No. 3. Demand No. 2 was dropped.
The learned Labour Court rejected demand No. 1. Hence the appeal.
3. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-Union that both Rehmania Textile Mills and Rehmania Textile (Silk) Mills were not independent units and as such proprietors followed the same policy in both the establishments in respect of terms and conditions of service of the workers. Therefore, they were entitled to at least recreation allowance equal to one month's wages including Rs. 35 as dearness allowance as given to the workers of Rehmania Textile Mills.
4. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that though both the mills were owned by the same proprietors, they were independent unilfc and the workers of one unit were separate from the workers of the other unit.
5. The appellant examined only Habibullah, General Secretary of the Union, who stated that the same Management was running another establishment known as Rehmania Textile Mills, that 1300 workers were employed in the other establishment and that those workers were given recreation allowance @ one month's wages including Rs. 35 as dearness allowance for each year. He also stated that the policy of the Management was that the facility which was given to the workers of the Rehmania Textile Mills would also be given to the workers of Rehmania Textile Silk Mills. In cross-examination he stated that in the previous year they got 2 months' wages as bonus whereas the workers of Rehmania Textile Mills got 3 months* wages as bonus, that in the year next before the previous year they got 1| months' wages as bonus and the other unit got If months' wages as bonus, that Rehmania Textile Mills has its own Union and their Union has no connection with that Union and that silk yarn was imported for their mills, whereas the cotton yarn for the other unit was indigenous. The respondent examined Muhammad Hanif, who stated that the proprietors of the Cotton Mills as well as the Silk Mills were the same but they were two independent units and that the Cotton Mills have a separate Collective Bargaining Agent, whereas the Silk Mills have another Collective Bargaining Agent. In cross-examination he stated that Cotton Mills had been given recreation allowance equal to one month's wages that Muhammad Amin was the Managing Director of both the Mills, that both the Mills have separate Accountants, that there were 92 employees in the silk Mills, that in the previous years sometimes the same bonus was given to the employees of both the Mills and sometimes it was different, that the records of both the Mills were separate, that the Participation JFunds of both the Mills were separately distributed, that the Profit and Loss Statements of both the Mills were separately maintained, that the assessment of income-tax was also different and that the service record of each of the employees of the Silk \ Mills was maintained separately. The learned Labour Court, in view of above oral evidence, held ttyat both the Mills were independent units and, therefore, there was no reason to grant recreation allowance to the workers of the appel- lant- Union only on the ground that the workers of the Textile Mills were being given recreation allowance.
6. On going through the record I find that the learned Labour Court had not taken into consideration documentary evidence produced in the case. Exh. P. P., which relates *to the Workers'
Participation Fund Account of Abdul Ghani son of Ghulam Rasool shows that he is an ^mployee of Rehmania Textile Mills Ltd., Lyallpur. Exh. P. O. is the service book of Abdul Ghani son of Ghulam Rasool and it shows that he is an employee of Rehmania Textile (Silk) Mills, Lyallpur. Exh. P. G. is the Workers' Participation Fund Account of Ghulam Rasool son of Mehr Shadi, and it shows that he is an employee of Rehmania Textile Mills Ltd., Lyallpur. Exh. P. Q. is the service book of the same person, which shows that he is an employee of Rehmania Textile (Silk) Mills Ltd., Lyallpur. Similarly Exh. P. B. is the Workers' Participation Fund Account of Ghulam Rasool son of Nizam Din and it shows that he is an employee of Rehmania Textile Mills Ltd., Lyallpur. Exh. P. P. is the service book of the same person, which shows that he is an employee of Rehmania Textile (Silk) Mills Ltd., Lyallpur.
7. From the above it is clear that the workers of both the units arej jointly employed by the same Management of both the units and, therefore p it cannot be said that they are independent units.
8. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the award of the Labour Court on Demand No. 1 and direct that the workers of the appellant-Union be given the same recreation allowance as is given to the workers of the other unit. The appeal is accepted to the above extent only.