DECISION These are two appeals, one is dated the 5th of September 1973 and the other is dated the 8th of September 1973. Both are directed against the award given by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, on the 10th of August 1973. In the appeal filed on the 5th of September 1973, the learned Court has directed the re-instatement of l2 persons with back benefits in application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance').
In the appeal filed on the 8th of September 1973, the Award was given on a reference made by the Government of Sind. In the later award the Court has accepted some of the demands of the Union.
I propose to dispose of these appeals by common order as the main point in both the appeals is common. In both the appeals it was urged that the Union did not represent the workers of the Universal Block but they represent only that of the Press. The learned Court for substantial reasons came to the conclusion that the Union represents the workers of both the block and press.
2. In the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, the Court had come to the conclusion that l2 persons were illegally dismissed from service and had ordered their re- instatement with full back benefits. On the other award which was given on a reference under section 32(1) (a) of the I. R. O. of 1969 the Court had accepted three of the demands of the Union, namely (1) for increase of Pay; (2) Bonus; and (3) Medical Facilities. The operative order about the increase of pay is rather too vague to be given effect. It runs as under :-- "The Union's witness in his evidence has shown definitely that the Management has earned huge profits. According to the Union, a technical hand gets only Rs. 80 as his pay per month which is of course very meagre during these hard days when the cost of living has very much increased, the demand therefore is not unreasonable and the same be revised according to the profits earned by the Company." Os bonus the finding is as under :-- "This demand of bonus is a labourer's right and since the Management had admitted that they do earn profits, the workers are entitled to the same in proportion with the profits earned by the Management. Section 10-C of the Standing Order provides the rate of bonus to be paid to workers and the same be distributed accordingly." As far as Medical facilities are concerned the' operative portion reads as under :-- "Since the other comparable concerns do provide medical facilities the Management should not hesitate to provide the same to the workers.** 3. The point common to both the appeals is as to whether the Union represents the workers of Universal Block as well as the Press or only the Press. The case of the appellant was that the Union represented only the ,workers of Press and not that of the Block. The grounds for the conclusion that the Union represents the workers of the Block as well as that of the Press are these : -- (/) The Block as well as the Press belongs to one and the same person ; (If) Many of the Orders passed were on the Forms of the Press; (Hi) The premises of the Block and the Press are not situated very far ; they are at a distance of about half furlong to each other ; (iv) The workers of both the Block and the Press are issued cards in the name of Universal Blocks ; (v) The Press Incharge receives correspondence from respondents at Universal Block, Frere Road; (vf) Mr. Mehboob Ahmed Faizi admitted in cross-examination that he is Manager of both sections.
4. On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed of Annexures *A* and *B*. The Annexure 'A' is that of 1955 under section 5(1) of the Factories Act while Annexure 'B' is of 1968 under section 2( j) of the Factories Act A careful perusal of both Annexures 'A* and *B* would disclose that they are one and the same. In fact it would appear from Annexure 'B' that the Registration under section 5(1) in 1955 Annexure 'A' had been withdrawn in 1968 through Annexure *B\ therefore, the contention of Mr. Khan cannot be supported on the basis of 'A' and 'B*.
5. Mr. M. A. Khan for the appellant contended that the mere fact that the ownership is the same is no circumstance to hold that the Union extends to both the concerns, lt is true it cannot be said to be a conclusive circumstance but the circumstance cannot be ignored. It is very weighty and important circumstance which cannot be ignored specially where the workers are very few. It was at one stage seriously contended on behalf of the applicant that it did not employ requisite number of persons so as to attract the privilege of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. 7.
6. I have come to the conclusion from the evidence on the record that the two concerns employ moTe than twenty persons and, therefore, the provisions of Standing Orders are applicable. I would hold that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance do apply to the Union and the Workers of the two concerns can take advantage of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance. In the result is dismissed.
8. I would now proceed to dispose of . This relates with the reference by the Government of Sind under section 32(1j(n) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. ln this appeal it was contended by Mr. M. A. Khan that notice under section 26 of the L R. O., 1969 was not served to the Management, and, therefore the Pakistan Labour Cases 1975award is bad in law. The remark on the envelope containing the notice by the Post Office reads as under :-- - Ct* <?. JL. Uf- This endorsement, Mr. M. A. Khan, submits cannot be said to be refusal by the Manager or by the Company so as to amount to good service on the appellant. Section 26 of the I. R. O., 1969 is a mandatory one. No negotiations can start without a notice under section 26 of the I. R. O., 1969. Moreover, on merit also the award cannot be maintained, lt is based on the opinion of the Court and not on evidence. The opinion of the Court as to what should be or should not be cannot be substituted for evidence. The opinion of the Court must be based on the evidence on the record. It has to follow what is on the record and cannot be the basis for any conclusion. The learned Court, for instance, has ordered the wages to be increased in the light of the profit made by the concern. No one knows what is the profit that the appellant concerned made. All that the appellant admitted was that it has made enough profit to run the concern. This admission does not attract the provision of section 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Unless one can come to the conclusion as to what was the profit, lt has to be not less than the aggregate of one month wages of the workmen employed, lt is only then a claim for statutory bonus can be made. Admittedly no one was examined, from any comparable concern about the medical facilities that have been ordered to be provided to the respondent-Union. The appeal is allowed and the Award of the learned Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.