DECISION ' A 'Charter of Demands' had been presented by the Union and there was another 'Charter of Demands' on behalf of the employers and both the petitions under section 32(1-A), I.R.O. Before the Labour Court were disposed of by a common order. Both the parties have filed appeals, and will again be disposed of by this order.
2. The circumstances forming the background of the case briefly stated are that the employees Union which is also the C.B.A. Submitted a 'Charter of Demands' to. The employers on 19-1-1989 and there was a supplementary demand dated 25-1-1989. Bilateral meetings were held but no settlement could be arrived at and as a result, a 'strike notice' was circulated on 30-1-1989.
Conciliation proceedings started from 4-2-1989 but failed. The Union then filed a petition under section 32(1-A) of I.R.O. Before the Labour Court.
3. It was during the pendency of these proceedings that the employers, who were represented by the Managing Director, the General Manager and one more Director by the name of Ismail, made an offer in writing from their side. This came to be accepted by the Union but it was not in writing.
4. The offer, however, was subject to the acceptance by the 'Board', and that was not approved. The parties, thereafter, led their evidence which was treated as evidence in the other petition also, which had been filed by the employers. The order of the Labour Court has been challenged, as already mentioned, by both the parties. The Union made a grievance of the fact that the order was not as per employers' offer and the latter raising the contention that the Union had led no evidence about the wages and the benefits from comparable concerns and the Court had also failed to consider that the company had fallen on hard times and its affairs were in the hands of the `Official Assignee'.
5. Admittedly the offer which had been made by employers was a qualified one, and the approval of the Board had not been accorded. The record clearly makes out that the company was a family partnership which had been later on incorporated as a Private Limited Company. By the time that the offer had been made, the appointment of 'Official Assignee' as a Liquidator had been announced. The judgment of the High Court is on the record as Iqbal Alam and another v. Messrs Plasticrafters (Pvt.) Ltd. And 4 others 1991 CLC 589, and is dated 21-1-1991. The Court had given two months' time to the parties to either purchase the shares of the other party or bifurcate the Company on the terms to be mutually agreed upon between them. It might as well be noted that the date of the submission of the charter of demands coincides with the date of the decision of the High Court and the position of the Company is reflected in the said judgment and need not be dilated upon.
6. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, learned counsel for the Union maintained that the employers were bound by the offer they had unilaterally made before the Labour Court, and could not be permitted to wriggle out from the same. In support of his contention he referred to the case of Punjab Employees' Security Non-Gazetted Staff Union v. Khalid Iqbal, Director Social Security reported in PLD 1979 Lah.
448. In that case there was an agreement made by the Lyallpur Municipality duly recorded in a minute, that if the Municipality was raised to the status of 'Corporation', it will pay Corporation and Travelling Allowance to its workmen. The Municipality had been converted into a Municipal Corporation but no letter was received from the Government. It was found by the Court that though the letter had not been received from the Government, yet it made difference, because the Government had passed the Local Government Act, 1975. That left no need to supply a letter and the agreement made by the erstwhile Municipality was covered by the term Settlement and could be enforced under section 34 of the I.R.O. The case therefore is distinguishable.
7. Reference was also made to the case of Nazar Industries Limited v. Employees' Union 1977 PLC
343. It shows that the management had made an offer of bonus but later had tried to back out on the ground that sufficient profit had not been made. They were not allowed to resile from their commitment as nothing had been brought on the record to show that the position had changed.
Further the statement of account which had been furnished, was meagre and could not pass muster. This case also does not help the Union. The promise was contingent and it had failed to ripen into an absolute obligation.
8. There is a string of authorities to the effect that Labour Courts in making their awards on demands, cannot resort to surmises and conjectures. Nor is it open to them to act like benevolent despots. All the demands have to be supported by proper evidence and it has to be established that the benefits demanded or claimed, were also enjoyed by the workmen in similar or comparable concerns/organisations. Further it has to be examined whether the management in the case was in a position to meet the said demands. The award of the benefits accorded by the Government will, of course, be on a different footing.
9. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob referred to the case of Williamsons (India) Private Ltd. v. Their Workmen wherein it was said that in comparing the wage-structure with those prevalent in similar establishments, the Tribunals should bear in mind all the relevant facts in relation to the problem, e.g. The extent of the business carried on by the concerns, the capital invested by them, the profits made by them, the nature of their business; their standing, the strength of their labour force, etc. Etc. The Tribunal would not be justified in basing its award on the wages prevalent in a much bigger concern with a much bigger capital and with a much larger business spread all over the country. The extent of reserves, the dividend declared also have to be taken care of.
10. I might refer to a case from this Tribunal as cited by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the employer M/s. Zelin Limited v. Employees' Union 1975 PLC 431, in which it was emphasized that the award has to be based on proper adjudication and if not so done, it was bound to end in the blasting of the hopes for the employees in the appeal or writ.
11. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, learned counsel for the Union maintained that the union had been deputed, and had failed to produce the requisite evidence, not suspecting that the promise will be honoured only in the breach. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that unfortunately they have remained totally reticent and failed to put any construction on their demands. Under the circumstances I am afraid, there was no justification for the Labour Court to make the award as it was done.
12. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned counsel for the employers, however, made a statement in Court that the employers to keep peace and harmony in the industry, would not like to claim their pound of flesh and would extend the hand of friendship to the workers. He conceded the continuance of Rs,100 p.m. Which was given to the employees in the Interim Award, dated 11-3-1990. He also indicated the management's willingness to pay fifty days' salary as bonus for the year 1990-91. It was also mentioned by him, and it goes without saying that the Special Allownace of Rs,200 per month ordered by the Government would also be duly paid to the workers. I think this to be a fair gesture under the circumstances, and should be given due effect, as I do.
13. Under the circumstances the order of the Labour Court stands modified to the extent as referred to in the statement of the learned counsel for the employers as detailed above. The award would be valid for a period of one year. Orders accordingly. Both the appeals stand disposed of in above terms.