DECISION This is an appeal under section 37(3) of the I.R.O, against the award of the Labour Court. 2.
The employees of the appellant-company raised an industrial dispute by serving demand notice followed by strike-notice. Conciliation proceedings having failed an application under section 32(1- A) of the I.R O. was made to the Labour Court for the adjudication of the demands. The demands were resisted by the appellant.
3. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court accepted the various demands except Demands Nos. 5(e), (/) and (j). Aggrieved by the acceptance of the demands the present appeal was hied.
4. Demand No. I relates to bonus.
The Union demanded the bonus at the rate of 1 months salary. The case of the appellant was that on account of loss the claim could not be accepted and despite the loss a bonus at the rate of one month's salary was given to the employees. The Labour Court allowed the bonus for 1 months on the ground of custom, usage and practice as it was established that earlier bonus for one month was given in spite of the loss having been incurred by the Company. On hearing the arguments I am unable to support the view taken by the Labour Court. As already pointed cut the main grourd for grant of bonus was by way of custom, usage, practice but in the present case no such thing was established. Previously the bonus for the year 1971-72 and 1972-73 was granted for 15 days and one month respectively on account of the settlement between the parties. There was loss only in the year 1971-72. The appellant had produced the evidence to show that loss was suffered in the year 1973-74 regarding which the present dispute was raised. No evidence was led on behalf of the Union to the contrary. In fact the evidence reveals that the bonus was claimed irrespective of the fact whether there was gain or loss. I have not found any justification to support the award of the Labour Court. The appellant has already allowed bonus at the rate of one month's salary and this is approved. The bonus shall continue to be paid at the same ra'e for future.
5. Demand No. 2 relates to the pay scales. According to the stand taken by the union no scale of pay was provided. On the other band the appellant produced a charter of pay scales allowed to various categories of employees. The Labour Court simply directed the appellant to revise the pay scale which had been prescribed in the year 1970. Consequently Demand No. 2 remained un-decided and it was left to the discretion of tbe appellant to revise the pay scale. The charter of pay scale produced in the case reveals that the annual increment has been allowed about 5% on the basic starting pay. In my view this is rather low. I order that annual increment at the rate of 10% on the basic starting pay shall be given to the workmen.
6. Demand No. 3 relates to the allowances for House, Conveyance, Washing and Attendance. The Labour Court allowed 10% of the wages as House Rent, Rs. 15 p.m. as Attendance Allowance, fifty paisas per day as Conveyance Allowance for the workers living at a distance of three miles and Rs. 5 p.m. as Washing Allowance. On the other hand it was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that a Consolidated Allowance of Rs 20 (twenty) covering the aforesaid demands was allowed in the year 1972 and an additional sum of Rs. 25 was allowed in 1973. So the total amount with regard to these demands comes to Rs.
45. The Labour Court has not given convincing reasons nor there is sufficient evidence on record to jus'ify to support the award. I am, however, of the view that on account of increase in the expenses with regard to the aforesaid items I fix Rs. 60 covering all the demands to be paid to every worker. / 7. Demand No. 4 covers various items.
8. Demand No. 4(a) deals with the uniforms including shoes which were allowed by the Labour Court. The appellant has no objection to the t * 1975 Golden Industries Ltd. v. Workers'
Union (Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, Appellate Tribunal) grant of uniform but has contested the supply of shoes. I uphold the objection and disallow the demand for shoes.
9. Demand No. 4[b) requires that all allowances, other than House Rent, Conveyance Allowance and Attendance Allowance, be merged in pay. This was accepted by the Labour Court as it was found to be reasonable. I must say that the Labour Court failed to consider that in the previous years the Consolidated amount covering the various allowances was being paid and so it could not be possible to find out how much amount would come to for the items other than House Rent, Conveyance and Attendance Allowances. Thus the question of merger was impracticable. I, therefore, set aside the award and reject the demand.
10. So far Demands Nos. 4(c) and 4(d) are concerned the appellant did not press their objection against the award of the Labour Court.
11. Demand No. 4(g) relates to the allowances to be paid to the workers who are required to perform out-door duty. An assurance was given on behalf of the appellant that the workers who were sent out were paid Conveyance Charges and they would continue to pay. In view of the assurance the demand was not pressed on behalf of the workmen so the award of the Labour Court is set aside.
12. Demand No. 4(0 relates to payment of allowances to Salim and Majid as admissible to other employees and allowed by the Labour Court. The appellant gave up the contest against this award.
13. In the result the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent as indicated and the appeal stands disposed of.