DECISION This appeal has been filed under section 3 7(3) of the I. R. O. against the award made by the Labour Court.
2. The Union raised an industrial dispute by serving notice of demands followed by a notice of strike. The conciliation proceedings having failed the dispute was taken to the Labour Court. In all 11 demands were made. The appellant-company resisted the demands and it was pleaded that the demands were not justified and the financial position of the Company was not such so as to meet these demands. The Labour Court allowed demands No. 1, 2, 3,4 and 7.
Consequently the Management filed the present appeal.
3. Demand No. 1 pertains to the increase in wages. The Labour Court allowed the increase by 10% of the wages. While allowing this demand the Labour Court had observed that two settlements pertaining to Adamjee Cotton Mills and Hussain Textile Mills had been produced through the General Secretaries of these Companies and they had stated that the wages of the workers had been increased and their evidence had not been controverted. It seems that the learned Presiding Officer did not care to go through the settlement. In neither of the settlements the increase in wages was agreed upon. On the contrary the workers did not press the demand with regard to incrM^e in wages. Apart from this the evidence which had been brought on Word reacts against the conclusion that the aforesaid two Companies could be compared with the appellant. The aforesaid two Companies are engaged in the manufacture of textile while the appellant has only spindles used for preparing yarn. There are also various other distinguishing factors.
4. Another factor which was relied upon by the Labour Court was that the rate of the cotton yarn bundle was increased from Rs. 40 to Rs. 48 or Rs. 50.
There may be no doubt about this increase but this alone would hardly be the critarion for allowing the increase in wages as the increase in the value of raw material i.e. cotton and other material had not been taken into consideration. In fact no evidence was led to that effect.
5. It also seems that the learned Presiding Officer did not take into consideration the increase in wages by Rs. 42 since 1972 as has been admitted by the General Secretary of the Union in the cross-examination.
Furthermore Rs. 110 per month had been allowed as Cost of Living Allowance. Thus no justification had been provided to order the increase in wages. It may, however, be stated that the Labour Court had pointed out that an increase of Rs. 10 in wages allowed by settlement of 1972 was withdrawn by the appellant. In my view this withdrawal could not be permitted. The appellant shall maintain the increase of Rs. 10 per month as agreed upon by settlement of 1972. The representative appearing on behalf of the appellant contended before me that the payment of Rs. 10 had not been stopped but the admission which have been made by the witness of the appellant clearly contradicts his statement.
6. Demand No. 2 relates to leave facilities and the encashment if the leave had not been enjoyed. The Labour Court allowed the leave encashment in case of earned leave only. The learned Representative on behalf of the appellant did not press his objection with regard to the decision of the Labour Court.
7. Demand No. 3 relates to House Rent Allowance, Attendance Allowance and the Conveyance Allowance. The Labour Court have allowed 10% of the wages as House Rent and Rs. 15 per month as Attendance Allowance subject to three days authorised absence and Conveyence Allowance at the rate of fifty paisas per day if the worker is living beyond a distance of three miles. 1a my view there was no justification to allow Hou-e Rent Allowance.
Ordinarily the wages in-i elude the House Rent. No evidence of comparable concern was led torv support the demand. Crescent Textile Mills is not shown to be a comparable concern. Admittedly Adamjee Textile Mills do not pay any House Rent and with regard to Hussain Textile Mills the demand was withdrawn at the time of settlement.
8. So far as the demand for attendance allowance is cencerned it was pointed out by the Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant that Rs. 15 per month was already paid to skilled workers and Rs. 10 to unskilled workers No justification exists for such a discriminatory treatment. I maintain Attendance Allowance of Rs. 15 per month for both categories of workers provided the worker does not remain ab-/ sent for more than three days on sick leave and in case of any other*^ absence even for a day the worker shall not be entitled to Attendance Allowance. So the award of the Labour Court is modified to this extent.
9. So far Conveyance Allowance is concerned no exception is taken to the award given by the Labour Court.
10. Demand No. 4 relates to the categorization of the various services and their scales. The Labour Court, however, awarded 20% increase in the scale. It was rightly urged by the Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant that the award went beyond scope of the demand. The increase in wages was demanded as per Demand No. 1. It is rather surprising that the learned Presiding Officer allowed double increase; one while dealing Demand No. 1 and the other while dealing Demand No. 4. So the award with regard to this demand must be set aside. 11.
Demand No. 7 pertains to overtime for Chowkidars. The Labour Court allowed double overtime to the Chowkidars. No exception can be taken to the award. It was admitted by the learned Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant that all the workmen except the Chowkidars were allowed double overtime. The Chowkidars are allowed single overtime. There seems to be no justification for such a discrimination. The objection of the appellant is overruled. l2. In the light of what has been stated with regard to the various demands the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent as indicated and so far Demand No. 4 is concerned since the award is not in accordance with the demand it is set aside and the demand is remanded to the Labour Court for disposal on merits.