DECISION The impugned Award was passed on the 21st of February 1974 in an application under section 32( 1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'), whereby the learned Labour Court No. V allowed the application only in respect of one demand namely, Bonus.
2. Mr. Chishti, the learned Advocate for the appellant contended in the first place that the learned Court should not have only relied upon the gross profit of only one item, namely, wine. In this connection he made a reference! to Pakistan Petroleum Workers* Federation, Karachi v. Burmah Shell and\* others. It was observed in that case : "The profits made at any one place or location should be set against the result of the working of the whole Company, and so set it will be found that the Company has been making no profit worth the name out of which it can afford to pay a bonus to any of its workers.** 3. Similarly Mr. Chishti made a reference to Balance-Sheet Exh.
'B* at page 85. It would appear that the Company has suffered a total loss of Rs. 1,48,200.65. The loss was shared by the two partners (1) Mr. K. S Katrak (who died on 1-7-1972) father of Mr. Jamshed S. Katrak and (2) Mr. Jamshed S. Katrak. The loss of Rs. 53,303.45 was .debited towards the account of sole proprietor, Mr. Jamshed S. Katrak and the balance to the account of deceased partner. The whole loss was transferred to the accounts of the said two partners. It is noteworthy that there is no cross-examination on the loss stated by Mr. Jamshed Sohrab Katrak.
4. In the second place it was contended that in spite of loss the Company has paid one month's salary as Bonus in October 1973.
There is no cross-examination on this point also. In this connection a reference was made to the Affidavit of Mr. Mushtaq Ali in respect of Demand No. 3 (Profit Bonus). It runs as under :-- "That the respondent's Management earned profits but they failed to pay one month's Bonus to all the workers according to law under section 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment ' (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, therefore the demand of one month's Bonus to all the employees is justified.''
5. Mr. Jamshed Sohrab Katrak in para. 23 of his Affidavit stated as under :-- "So far as Demand No. 3 of Profit Bonus under section 10-C is concerned, I most respectfully submit that the firm has not earned any profit. Still a month's salary by way of Bonus has already been paid in October 1973.** It is noteworthy that in the cross-examination of Mr. Katrak he stated as under :-- "Sometimes back we have paid bonus equal to one month's salary. In 1971 and 1972 also we paid bonus equal to one month's salary.'* 6. It appears from the cross- examination of Mr. Katrak that what is stated in the Statement of Claim of Mr. Mushtaq Ali has been carried out and, therefore, there was no further cause of action for the Company. 7. (1) PLD 1961 SC 479.For the reasons given above I would allow the appeal and set aside the Award.