DECISION ' The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows:-
2. The appellants who are the Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondent-Bank made an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; before the Labour Court on the allegation that the respondent-Bank "was not acting upon the provisions of Standing Order 10-C of the Schedule given under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968."
3. It might as well be mentioned that the appellants were elected as the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Union which was formed early in 1989. They had raised an industrial dispute in which a number of demands had been raised which ultimately came to be settled on 16-9-1989. It included a demand for 4 bonuses per year, but, it was agreed by the parties, that the demand for bonus was dropped at the time of the settlement. The petitioners maintained that it was expected that the respondents on their own would comply with the provisions of law, but all in vain.
4. The Union had made approaches to the, management in that context and despatched a letter, dated 6-2-1990, which was duly replied to on 17-2-1990, but, it found no satisfaction. Then, other letters were sent on 20-2-1990 and 18-3-1990 which remained unanswered. In view of the unresponsive attitude adopted by the management, the appellants had sent a grievance notice on behalf of 42 workmen whose names were specifically mentioned. The reply received being evasive, the appellants filed the grievance petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
5. In the reply statement, it was contended that the appellants "could not espouse the cause of the workers, through an application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969; and that it should have stated the names of the individuals through the C.B.A. And not by the C.B.A. On behalf of the individual workers".
6. In regard to the bonus, it was said that the employees/workmen were being paid 2 bonuses every year equivalent to 2 months' basic salary and, therefore, the bonus as awarded by the respondents was not only just and fair, but more than the requirement of law. It went on to say that it was in this background that the Demand No, 10 in the Charter of Demands was not pressed by the Union.
7. The Union had produced its General Secretary, Muhammad Sagheer in evidence while Safdar Qazi was examined on behalf of the Bank.
8. There were two issues which have been framed by the learned Labour. Court. These were (1) with regard to the maintainability of the application, and (2) the other about the entitlement to receive the bonus under Standing Order 10-C, and answered them in the negative.
9. In regard to the Issue No, 1, the learned Labour Court reached its conclusion on the basis of the two judgments of the Sindh High Court; in the case of (1) Pakistan Herald Workers' Union v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others reported in 1990 PLC 802 and Messrs A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others reported in 1990 PLC 806; wherein, it had been laid down that although the provision contained in section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, authorised a Shop Steward or a Collective A Bargaining Agent to bring the individual grievance of a worker to the notice of his employer and also before the Labour Court in respect of rights guaranteed under any law or any Award or a Settlement, but, such petition had to be filed on behalf or in the name of the individual worker.
10. Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of I.C.P. Employees Front, Karachi through its General Secretary v. Presiding Officer, Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and another reported in PLD 1976 Kar. 1176; M/s. Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd. And others v. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, reported in 1990 SCM R 175 and Fauji Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
Employees' Union and another reported in 1989 PLC 218. He had also referred to an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karachi Pipe Mills Employees' Union, Karachi v.
Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd., Karachi (being Civil Appeal No, 190-K/1986), decided on 10-6-1991. It is neither a certified copy nor bears the names of the Hon'ble Judges.
11. Both the learned counsel for the parties contended that the view which found favour in the 'said judgment supported their point of view. Since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court is the law laid down, I would have asked for an authenticated copy; but, it will serve no purpose as I am clearly of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merit.
12. it is an admitted position that the Charter of. Demands included a demand for bonus. It was Demand No, 10 on the list. It is also an admitted position that the demand had been withdrawn. All the same, the settlement ultimately arrived at between the parties contains portions therein which throw light 'on the way their minds were working.
13. The very first term of the agreement is to the effect that this Settlement was full and final settlement of all the demands of the C.B.A. As contained in the Charter of Demands submitted on 25-4-1989; and any demand, which was not specifically mentioned in the Settlement shall be deemed as withdrawn and not pressed by the C.B.A. Reference may also be made to the finality clause which is in the following words--"In full and final settlement of all demands the C.BA. Has accepted the benefits and concessions as specified in this settlement and withdraws all other demands hitherto made and undertakes to make no financial demand or fresh demand involving financial implications during the currency of this settlement."
14. It might as well be mentioned that the demand of the appellants was for 4 bonuses in a year and the parties had settled for two bonuses of one month's basic salary each. This is certainly more than what is envisaged in Standing Order 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
15. The law laid down in the case of Pak Cigarette Labour Union v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi and another, reported in PLD 1981 SC 495, in no uncertain terms is that the statutory bonus cannot be given in addition to the agreed bonus, but, if the agreed bonus falls short of the statutory bonus, the employer will have to make good the difference to the workmen.
16. There was some conflict of opinion between the Sindh and Peshawar High Courts on the point as to whether the bonus paid by the employer would be deemed to become a part of wages or not, and the principle laid down in the judgment is on all fours with the contentions raised by Mr. Muhammad Tasnim, the learned counsel for the respondents.
17. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal.