DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated April 4, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court granted bonus, interim relief from January 1969, wages in lieu of leave and the payment of overtime dues, including that of Chowkidar. The impugned order was passed on an application under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), filed by Riaz Ahmed, General Secretary of Babul Islam Workers' Union (hereinafter called the Union).
2. Mr. Khalid Jamil, the learned Advocate for the appellant contended, in the first place, that the relief of bonus is based on no evidence. Mr. Riaz Ahmed, the General Secretary is the only witness, who appeared for the respondent-Union. He filed his own affidavit. A perusal of this affidavit would disclose that he had not even claimed bonus in his affidavit, much less to establish the grounds on which a claim for bonus can be based. He has not stated even in the application under section 32(1-A) of the Ordinance that the appellant had made substantial profits so as to entitle the workers for bonus. 3.
The learned Labour Court while granting bonus observed as under:-- "I am however inclined to think in particular as it has been admitted that the respondents have made 10% profit under the publication 'section and as such 7% of it can be utilized for the purpose of bonus 6. The learned Labour Court has also granted interim relief from January 1969. The witness, Allauddin Khalid candidly stated that interim relief had been paid in accordance with the directions of the Government. He gave a list of those of some of the workmen, who are mentioned in Exh. 4-A, and who had not been paid full interim relief in accordance with the Government's direction of 1969. Mr. Khalid Jamil the learned Advocate for the appellant states that his clients are willing to pay the difference in the increment granted to seven persons and the interim relief as mentioned in Exh: 4- A. On behalf of the respondents there is only a vague statement that the interim relief had been paid for only two months and thereafter the appellant stopped payment of the same. I accept the statement of Mr. Allauddin Khalid in preference to Mr. Riaz Ahmed and order that only 7 persons, namely, Rahmat Ali, Abdul Majeed, Sharafat Ali, Muhammad Baig, Ishaque Hussain, Karar Hussain, and Gul Rehman are entitled to the difference in the increment as interim relief, as per Exh. 4-A. 7.
There is no specific evidence that any worker has not been granted pay in lieu of leave due to him.
Mr. Khalid Jamil, the learned Advocate for the appellant, states that if any* worker is entitled to pay in lieu of leave in accordance with the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, read with Factories Act, 1934, his clients are willing to pay the same. I accept this statement and order accordingly.
8. In the result, the award of the learned Labour Court is set aside. The workmen can apply to the Management for any wages that may be due to them in lieu of leave. The Management, if due, to pay the wages for the same. Similarly, if any workman has worked overtime, he will be entitled to overtime wages in accordance with section 47 of the Fatories Act, 1934. In this connection, I may mention that the Chowkidar cannot be said to be a workman within the meaning of the definition of 'worker* given in the Factories Act, 1934. It reads as under:-- ** 'Worker* means a person employed (directly or through an agency) whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process, but does not include any person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room, place where no manufacturing process is being carried on.'* 9. A Chowkidar cannot be said to be a workman, as there is no evidence to that effect that he was employed to work in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process. He would, therefore not be entitled to any overtime wages.