DECISION This is an appeal against the award of the Labour Court.
2. The appellant had not paid cost of living allowance allowed by the Employees* Cost of Living (Relief) Ordinances and further the workers were being paid less than the minimum wages and, therefore, the Union raised an industrial dispute. After the conciliation proceedings failed and the failure certificate issued the Union approached the Labour Court. The appellant resisted the claim and pleaded tbat all the workers were paid the cost of living allowance as allowed by the Ordinances and the Minimum Wages Ordinance was not applicable and, therefore, the workers were not entitled to claim the minimum wages of Rs. 140 per month. The Labour Court after recording the evidence allowed the demand raised by the Union. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed.
3. The first plea on behalf of the appellant is that the Labour Court had allowed cost of living allowance at the late of Rs. 85 p.m. with effect from the lst of Augus 1973 although according to the first Ordinance only Rs. 35 had to be allowed. The second Ordinance allowing a further benefit of Rs. 50 as cost of living allowance was enforced from the 8th of June 1974. Consequently the workers were entitled to cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs. 35 only from the lst of August 1973 to the 7th of June, 1974 and not Rs. 85 as awarded by the Labour Court. This was conceded by the Representative for the Union.
I, therefore, allow the cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs. 35 per month from lst of August 1973 to the 7th of June 1974 while the cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs. 85 per month from 8th of June 1974 onwards is maintained.
4. The second ground which had been pleaded on behalf of the appellant is that all the workers had been paid cost of living allowance as allowed by the law. This was contested on behalf of the Union. The finding of ihe Labour Court supports the Union. I have gone through the evidence and I have no reason to disagree with the findings. According to the evidence on record some of the workers were paid cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs. 85 p.m. and some had been paid at the lesser rate with effect from the lst of July 1974 and the rest were not paid anything. This position is simply clear from the following statement:
5. Cost of living allowance allowed from July 1974 per month. Rs. 65.00 Rs. 20.00 NU Rs. 30.00 Rs. 20.00 Rs. 20.00 Rs. 85.00 Rs.
85.00 Rs. 85.00 Rs. 85.00 Rs. 85.00 Nil Nil Nil Nil Name No. 1. Maulana Zahrullah Jan 2. Mian Umer Shah
3. Khushhal 4. Ghulam Rasool 5. Hameed Khan 6. Yousaf 7. Abdul Razzak 8. Muhammad Afsar 9.
Muhammad Khursheed 10. Muhammad Naseem 11. Muhammad Rasheed 12. Zahoor 13. Muhammad Kaleem 14. Akhtar Shah 15. Nawaz lt is ordered that the workers be paid the arrears of the cost of living allowance in accordance with two Ordinances within three months.
5. Lastly it was urged that the Minimum Wages Ordinance was not applicable as the number of workers were less than twenty and, therefore, the minimum wages fixed under the Ordinance could not be allowed by the Labour Court. Indeed the Minimum Wages Ordinance is not applicable but that does not mean that the principle laid down by 1he Ordinance cannot be made applicable. The workers bad raised an industrial dispute and it was within the competence of the Labour Court to allow such wages as may be considered reasonable. There is nothing in law to debar the Labour Court 4 from allowing the minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 140 on the adjudication of industrial dispute. Consequently no exception can be taken to the award.
6. With the modification relating to the amount and the period of cost of living as indicated wh;le dealing with objection No. 1, the appeal is dismissed.