DECISION This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. Ill dated the 15th of May, 1974, whereby he accepted certain demands of the respondent-Union. Mr. Aliana, the leamed Representative of the Union has raised two preliminary objections before me namely, (1) That the appeal is incompetent; and (2) that because appeal has been filed only against the award in Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 1973 and not in Application No. 4 of 1973. There is no force in these objections. The memo, of appeal is signed by one Mr. Tahir Shaikha who has designated himself as Managing Director of the appellant-company. Mr. Aliana has relied on an unreported decision by this Court in - In that case Mr. Kooka, who had signed the memo, of appeal, had not described his capacity. It was not clear as to what position Mr. Kooka occupied in Messrs Khurshid Salt Works and I, therefore, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it has not been properly filed. There is no force in the second contention also. It is mentioned in the memo, of appeal in para l2 that :-- ''That since the learned lower Court has given one Award in Case No. 30/1973 and No. 4/1973 and hence one appeal is filed." The learned Court observed as under :-- "Since the facts are so closely inter connected here, I propose to dispose- of the aforesaid Application No. 4/73 also alongwith this Order in accordance with the evidence and the arguments tendered by the parties." The appeal in my view relates to the main Application No. 13/73 and also to 4/73. The preliminary objections are accordingly dismissed.
2. Mr. Sulaiman Kassim, the learned Advocate for the appellant has challenged the finding of the learned Court before me. He contended in the first place that the so-called lunaries are only contractors and not workers within the meaning of workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. It appears to me that it is a new point taken for the first time in appeal. I have carefully gone through the appellant's reply statement. It is long one and spread over 8 pages and there is no such allegation that the lunaries are contractors and not workmen.
3. In the second place it was contended that the learned Court has based its Award on the case of United Salt Workers' Union, Karachi v. Khurshid Salt Works. Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 1964 treat that concern to be a 'comparable concern'. The learned Advocate contended that the Award of the Labour Court has not been filed by any one connected with the United Salt Workers' Union and, therefore, his client had no opportunity to find out if the said Union can be said to be a 'comparable concern'. To be a comparable concern merely the nature of work is not sufficient what has further to be seen is 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, presence or absence and extent of reserves, dividends declared. This could be b found out only if some one from the Union or the Management was produced. Mr. Sulaiman Kassim, the learned Advocate for the appellant in this connection relied on the admission of Eddu in cross-examination. He stated as under: "It is correct that we are paid Rs. 11 for extraction of I0O Mds. of Salt. It is correct that in other companies such as Lonni Salt Works and Sind Salt Works, the rate is Rs. 10 and Rs. 10.50 per I0O Mds." Mr. Sulaiman Kassim relied on the above statement to support his contention that there is no evidence of any comparable concern which is paying Rs. 15- per I0O Mds. for Salt extraction. It may be so. On the other hand the- Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the Award which is Gazetted in Sind Government Gazette of March 7, 1973, at page 425. The Court can take judicial notice of an Award which is Gazetted but whe ther it can be said to be a comparable concern is a different matter. In the circumstances of the present case I would hold that it has not been proved that the United! Salt Workers, Union is a comparable concern. I would in the interest oil- justice remand the case for evidence on the point whether Messrs Khurshidj Salt Works is a comparable concern or not. The appellant will be entitled!* to produce evidence in his rebuttal on this point. The respondent-Union isj to produce some witnesses within two weeks from the date of this Order.
4. The Company to produce its witnesses within one week of the production of the witness produced by the respondent-Union if it so desires. The learned Court, thereafter, to give its findings as soon as conveniently possible for him and modify the award if it so thinks proper in the light of the findings on the issue remanded to it, and send to this Court. The appeal will be disposed of thereafter on the other points raised by Mr. Kassim Sulaiman.