DECISION This is an appeal against an Award given by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. I on the 14th of May 1974, in an application under section 32 (1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). The respondent-Union raised in all seven demands. The learned Court granted only demands Nos. 1 and 2 and part of demand No. 3, that is, relating to Conveyance Allowance only and rejected other demands. Mr. Ghulam Hasan, the learned Advocate for the appellant- company has challenged the Award only in respect of Demands Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I propose to deal with his contentions separately.
2. Jn the first place Mr. Ghulam Hasan contended that the learned Court should have given no Award on Demand No. 1, which relates to bonus as it is too vague. The learned Court has granted one month's bonus for the year 1972.
Demand No. 1 reads as under:-- "Annual Bonus equal to 4 months' salaries/wages should be paid to all workers." It is noteworthy that there is no demand for any specific year, i.e. for 1972. The demand is too general. The relevant portion of the Statement of Claim reads as under:-- "It is submitted that the industry earns huge profits at the hard labour of the workers and in consideration of this fact generous bonuses have been paid to the workers in other comparable concerns. It is, therefore, prayed that 4 months' salaries/wages as bonus every year be awarded by this Hon'able Court." Reading the Demand Notice and the Statement of Claim it is very clear that the Union did not ask for bonus for the year 197 \ The Award in respect of one month's bonus for the year 1972 is, therefore, based on no evidence. The Award as to bonus, is set aside.
3. Demand No. 2. --Reads as under:-- "Annual increments at the rate of 15% of wages/salarics should be allowed to all workers," The learned Court gave the Award as under:-- the skilled or unskilled should It is the lower paid person"So demand is allowed to the extent that get ten rupees increase for two years, who is badly hit." On the face of it the Award is not consistent with the demand. Rupees ten increase for two years is not what the Union demanded. The Union's demand was for 15% increase in wages for all workers. The Award on the other hand is too vague and not in keeping with the increase in wages demanded. The demand was not for only lump sum increase but only an increase of 15% of wages of all the workers. The Award in respect of increase of wages for two years is set aside.
4. Demand No. 3.--Is divided into four parts, (a), (b), (c) and (d). The learned Court has not allowed (a), (c) and (d). It has allowed Demand 3 (b) in respect of Conveyance Allowance at the rate of four annas per day to those workers who lived beyond three miles from the factory. Most of the workers, it appears, from the evidence, lived} beyond three miles of the factory. Mr. Ghulam Hasan contended 51 that the Award is based on no evidence. It was observed in the1 case of Employees' Union of Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co., by Mr. Khurshid Zaman, Chairman, published in 1962 PLC 869 at page 880 as under: -- "It is also an established practice in most of the industrial establishments that some conveyance allowance is paid to those workers who live at a distance of more than 3 miles from the place of their work."
5. The above is a statement of fact which has not been challenged before me. I have followed this observation in several cases. I would, therefore, maintain the award in respect of Conveyance Allowance.
6. For the reasons given above the Award in respect of Demands Nos. 1 and 2 is set aside. With this modification the rest of the Award is maintained. No one appeared for the Union.