DECISION This is an appeal under section 37(3) of the I.R.O, against the award of the Labour Court. 2.
The respondent-Union raised an industrial dispute by serving notices of demands and strike.
Conciliation proceedings having failed the dispute was taken to the Labour Court. In all l2 demands were raised. The Labour Court after recording the evidence allowed demands No. 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
Aggrieved by this the appellant-company filed the present appeal.
3. Demand No. 4 relates to the supply of bedding kit to the Truck Drivers in mobile duty while demand No. 6 relates to the grant of rest for one day after l2 hours journey or Rs. 15 per day in lieu thereof. The Labour Court consolidated both these demands and allowed Rs. 5 per day to the Drivers and Rs. 2 to the Cleaners provided they remain out for more than one day. The representative appearing on behalf of the appellant did not contest the demand but what he wanted was a clarification as to whether the allowance payable under the demand would be for all the days the employees remained out or they be allowed the allowance for the period in excess of one day. In my view the allowance will not be given for the first day but it shall be given for the period excluding the first day.
4. Demand No. 7 relates to the House Rent Allowance claimed at the rate of Rs. 150 p.m. with effect from the lst of June 1974. The Labour Court awarded 10% of the wages excluding the cost of living allowance and Dearness Allowance. In my view no justification has been provided for the grant of this allowance. No evidence was led that any comparable concern was paying any such allowance.
Ordinarily the wages would include the rent. The demand is, therefore, rejected. B 5. Demand No. 8 relates to the Medical Facilities to the workers and their dependants or in the alternative an amount of Rs. 80 p.m. The Labour Court ordered that medical facilities should be provided to every worker.
This is rather a vague award and the financial implications have not been considered. There can be no doubt that at present the medical facility has been treated to be part of the terms of service but the extent of facilities should not be left in doubt. I, therefore, order that the medical allowance should be provided to every worker at the rate of 10% of the basic salary. C 6. Demand No. 10 requires the appellant to stop deputing the employees to any other concern. This demand was allowed by the Labour Court. In my view the Labour Court did not consider the circumstances whereby the workers were deputed to the other concerns. It is not disputed that the concerns to which the workers were deputed are sister-concerns managed by the same Partners. The appellant is engaged in transport and it has been proved that this concern is running at a los? and most of the time the workers have to sit idle. In order to utilise their services and make up the |pss the workers are deputed to the other concerns owned by $hf SRmo partners. The profit which is being earned and as indicated by the Labour Court is not in transport business but the work which the appellant is getting on commission for the transportation without using their own vehicles and the vehicles as well as the staff which is provided by the Oil Companies with which the contract of transport has been entered into. Consequently it is a separate business and the profit so earned cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of transport business exclusively owned and run by the appellant. There are six drivers and five cleaners and in case their services cannot be utilised and they have to sit idle for a long time there can be only two alternatives for the appellant i.e. either to terminate the services of some of them or to depute them to their sister concerns. If the former course is adopted it would deprive the workers of their livelihood and furthermore disputes are likely to arise which will disturb the peace and adversely affect the harmony which is essential.
So the demand is rejected.
7. Before I conclude I would like to refer to the observation made by the learned Presiding Officer in the awafd to the effect that it was a settled law that if the maker of any written statement did not appear in the witness-box it was of no use. At least no such law has been quoted. In my view the learned Presiding Officer failed to appreciate the legal implications if the person who signs written statement does not appear in the witness-box. This situation arises in case no evidence of any kind is tendered in support of thdvcase set up in written statement but if some witnessi appears to support th#case set up in the written statement; it is immaterial whether the person^hoVqtns written statement appears in the witness-box or not.
8. In the result^fe^award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent indicated while dealing with the demands. --