DECISION This is an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, against an award given by the Labour Court.
2. The appellant is engaged m the manufacture of salt. The respondent- Union raised an industrial dispute relating to certain demands by serving strike notice on the appellant on the 8th of May 1973. Conciliation proceedings were resumed without success and Failure Certificate was issued on the 6th of August 1973. Consequently the matter was taken to the Labour Court by the Union. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court gave an award dated 15th of May 1974 whereby certain demands were accepted and some demands were rejected. The appellant being aggrieved by the award fited an appeal. My learned predecessor by order dated 10th of August 1974 remanded for further findings in respect of two demands. On remand fresh evidence was taken and the finding was given by the Labour Court vide order dated the 15th of April 1975.
3. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant pressed his objection in respect of three demands viz., demand No. 3 relating to increase in wages, demand No. 6 relating to labour charges of piece-rated workers and portion of demand No. 19 relating to the payment for the period of strike and lock-out.
4. Taking up demand No. 3 the Labour Court had awarded a general increase of Rs. 35 P.M. to workers on the presumption that this was already being paid by the Management. This was disputed by the learned counsel on the ground that the workers who were being paid on the basis of the work done by them were not workmen within the meaning of I. R. O. but they were contractors and consequently they could not be allowed the increase and in fact it was never paid. This was one of the issues which was remanded by my learned predecessor. The finding of the Labour Court is that those persons employed on extraction of the salt were not contractors but piece-rated workers. In view of the evidence brought on record I see no reason to disagree with the finding. It is true that no time for their work was fixed but none of the witnesses produced by the Management contended that those persons were contractors. The learned Labour Court had given sufficient and cogent reasons in reaching the conclusion. The objection raised by the Management is overruled.
5. Taking up demand No. 6 the workers were paid at the rate of Rs. 10.20 per hundred Mds. of salt in pursuance of the agreement dated 11- 3-1971 which was in force for the period of two years which expired on 10-3-1973. The workers demanded the rate to be increased to Rs. 30 per hundred Mds. of salt.
During the pendency of the dispute the Management increased the rate to Rs.
11. The Labour Court, however, allowed Rs. 15 on the basis of the rate available in another concern, without holding that the two concerns were comparable with each other. Consequently my learned predecessor remanded this issue also for determination regarding comparability of the two concerns. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the two concerns are not comparable with each other. In fact it was established that the other concern was closed in 1972.
There is also evidence that there are two other concerns which are paying Rs. 10 and Rs. 10.50 per hundred Mds. of the salt to the workers. It is however, not known whether these two concerns are comparable with the appellant concern. Consequently the other concerns cannot bej treated to be the basis for the determination of the rate of wages. I have,U therefore, to depend upon the general conditions prevailing in the country.) It is a matter of common experience that since a few years the prices of every commodity have increased and there is also general increase in the wages of the workers. Since the prices of the commodities have increased the profit will also naturally increase, lt was also conceded at the bar that there has been increase in the price of salt as well.
Looking to these circumstances I am of the opinion, that rate of Rs. l2 per hundred Mds. will be reasonable. I, therefore, reduce the amount awarded by the Labour Court to Rs. l2 per hundred Mds.
6. Lastly, I take up the demand No. 19. The Union had gone on strike from the 7th of August 1973, but the strike was declared illegal by the Government w.e.f. 12-9-1973. Consequently the workers cannot be givenL wages from the period when the strike was declared illegal. So far asf the period from 7-8-1973 to 11-9-1973 is concerned there is nothing on record to show that the strike for this period was declared illegal. It is, therefore, presumed that the workers were justified in going on strike. I, therefore, order that they should be paid the wages for the period from 7-8-197J to 11-9- 1973.
7. As regards lock-out it has been found by the Labour Court that the workers were illegally locked-out. The learned counsel has not pointed out anything substantial to assail that finding. I, therefore, agree with the Labour Court that the workers must be paid for the period of illegal lock- out.