DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated the 28th of March 1974 by Labour Court No. V, under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). An application was made under section 32(1-A) of the Ordinance on the 14th of July 1973 in which 17 demands were raised. The learned Court granted some of the demands and refused the others. In appeal the Award on Demands Nos. 2, 4, 10, l2 and 17 has been challenged. 3.
2. Mr. Nanji, contended that Rajabali Khoppar Mill and Rajabali Oil Mills is one and the same and the findings of the learned Court that they are two different mills is not correct. Mr. K. R. Jan, the learned Representative for the respondent contended that they are not two different mills but one and the same. Mr. Jan, however, submitted that the Settlement relied upon by Mr. Nanji is not a Settlement at all. The Settlement in question only bears the impressions without names of the persons who havei affixed their thumb-marks on the Settlement in question. I would hold thatU the Settlement, therefore, is not a valid Settlement though it has been acted! upon. In the next place Mr. Nanji contended that the application was not maintainable as the respondent is not the Collective Bargaining Agent. Whether a Trade Union is a Collective Bargaining Agent or not is a question of fact. It should have been specifically raised to enable the other party to establish that it is a "Collective Bargaining Agent". I have gone through the relpy filed by the appellant-company. There is no such plea. I would, therefore, hold that the application is maintainable.
4. Demand No. 2 relates to 40% increase in the wages for the workmen. The learned Court granted an increase of 20% of wages in the interest of justice. In this connection Mr. Nanji contended that 20% increase in wages is not based on any evidence. On the other hand he submitted that the workers have already been granted Rs. 35 per month as Cost of Living Allowance under the Provisions of Cost of Living Act, 1974. It is true the learned Court should have taken this aspect into consideration. The Award in respect of increase of 20% Wages, is therefore, set aside. 5.
6. Demand No. 10 relates to uniforms. Mr. Nanji stated that the nature of work in Oil Mills is such that if uniform is at all allowed it should only be nickers. I would allow two nickers as uniform in a year with vest. 7.. Demand No. l2 relates to bonus. The learned Court grauted bonus to the workers since 1969. He forgot that the demand in respect of bonus was raised in 1973. Demand for bonus for past years cannot be granted. It is, therefore, set aside.
8. Demand No. 17 relates to Wages for the period of strike. In this connection Mr. Nanji relied on Para. 14 of the Affidavit of Mr. Yousuf Ali, the Manager of the appellant firm. Para. 14 reads as under:-- "That in course of conciliation proceedings on 19th June 1973 the applicants have undertaken not to resort to strike. However, in violation of their undertakings to the conciliator, the applicants have Demand No. 4 related to Provident Fund Scheme. Mr. Nanji in this connection submitted that the evidence led by the appellant of two 'comparable concerns* shows that they have no Provident Fund Scheme in their concern. The Award as to Provident Fund Scheme is based on no evidence, lt is, therefore, set aside. proceeded on strike. Therefore, there is no justification for any demand for wages for strike period." I have gone through the Affidavit of Mr. Yousuf Ali. There is no cross- examination on the allegation made above. The Union has not made out a case for the Wages of the Strike period. If a Trade Union wants wages for period when it has not worked it has to establish a case for making out special circumstances. This the Union has failed in this case. The Award in respect of Wages for the strike period is set aside.
9. In the result the Award is modified to this extent that workers would be entitled to two khaki nickers with vest every year.