DECISION This appeal is directed against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. Ill dated the 11th of October,-1973 whereby the learned Court accepted the application for I6 days Sick Leave guaranteed under the Factories Act and also awarded Bonus under section 10(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the "Standing Order"). Mr. Nizam for the appellant contended that the respondents are not entitled to double bonus. There had been two Agreements between the parties. One is dated 8th of July 1971 and the other one is of 31st July 1972. The necessity for second Supplementary Agreement dated the 31st of July 1972 arose because the one dated 8th of July 1971 did not cover the workers at the Head Office. It was conceded by Mr. Nayab Naqvi that the second Agreement covered the cases of workers only employed at the Head Office and the one dated 8th of July 1971 applied to the workers at the Factory. The one dated 31st of July 1972 particularly mentions that the bonus agreed to be paid will be under section 10(c) of the Standing Order, 1968. Mr. Nizam, for the appellant submitted that no specific mention was made in the Agreement dated the 8th of July 1971 as section 10(c) was introduced by amendment latter on.
This is so. Had section 10(c) existed on the 8th oft July 1971, no doubt, that it would have been mentioned as it was done in the Agreement dated the 31st of July 1972. At any rate the relief claimed is general! enough to cover the case of workers at the Head Office also which they are! not entitled on a perusal of the Agreement dated 31st of July 1972. Under-4 that Agreement it has been specifically mentioned that the Bonus which is being given is under section 10(c) of the Standing Order. 1 would hold that the workers are not entitled to Statutory Bonus under section 10(c). This would be not fair as to grant them Statutory Bonus which under section 10(c) would mean giving the workers double bonus which is not equitable and fair.
2. The next point urged by Mr. Nizam was about I6 days* Sick Leave. He contended that their case is covered by Social Security Ordinance and they cannot give I6 days' Sick Leave under the Factories Act. On the other hand, Mr. Nayab Naqvi, for the respondent, contended that Social Security Ordinance does not deal with Sick Leave.
It only provides certain benefits b in a worker who is not well. I accept his contention. I would maintain the award as regards Sick Leave.
3. In the result the award is partly maintained and partly set aside. It is set aside in respect of Bonus and maintained as regards to Sick Leave. Order as above.