DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated October, 11, 1972, whereby the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, granted certain demands raised by the appellant-Union. Mr. S. P. Lodhi appeared on 7th December 1972 for the appellant-Union and completed his arguments, when Mr. A. S. Dehlvi for the respondent prayed for adjournment, as he was engaged only on that date. I have heard Mr. Khalid Jamil, the learned Advocate for the respondent today. The only contention that Mr. Lodhi raised before me was that the Court had erred in law by fixing lst January 1972, as the date from which the workmen would be entitled to claim leave benefits. I may mention at the very outset that the learned Court has not given any reason as to why it had fixed the effective date for claiming leave benefits from lst January 1972. 2.
Leave can be either casual leave or annual leave. A workman is entitled to casual leave under section 9 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance) to 10 days in the aggregate in one calendar year. On the face of it, casual leave means which is granted casually. Under Standing Order 9 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, as it stood, the Casual Leave was in the discretion of the employer. On the other hand, Annual Leave is guaranteed under section 49-B of the Factories Act of 1934. A workman, who did not avail of Annual Leave in a particular year, could take it under subsection (2) of section 49-B of the Factories Act. It would, therefore, not be in accordance with the law to order that a workman would be entitled to Annual Leave only with effect from lst January 1972. In fact, Khalid Jamil, the learned Advocate for the respondent candidly conceded this position in law. The question is as to what date should be fixed for the purposes of entitlement of Annual Leave. I consider that the) workmen should be entitled to claim Annual Leave within the meaning of,5 section 49 of the Factories Act of 1934 from the date that the application! under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was made, i.e. 22nd January 1971. I would hold that those of the workmen who did not avail of their Annual Leave in 1969 were entitled to claim the same in 1971 or pay in accordance with section 49-B of the Factories Act, 1934. So far as the Casual Leave is concerned, no order can be passed if no Casual Leave was granted to the workmen prior to the application made by the Union. The workmen will be entitled to claim Casual Leave in accordance with law.
3. In the result, the award is modified only to this extent that the workmen would be entitled to claim Annual Leave with effect from 22nd January 1971, as mentioned above.