This is an application for review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code read with sections 12 and 17 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, of my order, dated 25th March 1969.
2. It would be useful to reproduce order XLVII, rule I (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, in order to consider the contentions of the learned Advocate for the applicants. It runs as under :- "(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal hasbeen preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Smell Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge . . . . . at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake Or error apparent on the face of the record, . . . . ., desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court, which passed the decree or made the order,
(2) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
3. Mr. Nizam Abmad, the learned Advocate for the applicants, raised several points before me, namely :-,
(1) That the burden to prove if the Company had made any profit in 1965-66, .lay on the workmen, which they failed to discharge. In the absence of proof that the Company had made profits no bonus could be granted.
(2) That the workmen could not be allowed bonus for future.
(3) That, at any rate, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant bonus for the years 1966-67 and 1967- 68.
(4) That the Balance-Sheet of the Company, if perused, would disclose that the Company had suffered loss.
4. On the face of it, the grounds raised before me are not covered by the provision of Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The points raised before me do not amount to the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exorcise of due diligence, was riot within the knowledge of the application when the order was passed. There is also no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The mere fact the because of some new point that had been now raised before me, which no doubt could have been raised earlier, I can take a different view than what I have taken, is no ground for review.
5. The question of burden of proof loses its importance after the parties have led evidence. The Company had the Balance-Sheet in its possession. It could have produced the Balance-Sheet in order to prove that the Company had suffered loss for the years in question. It did not produce the same for reason best known to itself. The Company could not even made an application before me for production of the Balance-Sheet. It was possible when hearing the appeal that may have allowed it in the interest of justice. It is now too late to consider the Balance-Sheet. The Balance- Sheet of any Company is not conclusive proof that the Company had suffered loss. The Court would be within its jurisdiction to disallow any item claimed by the Company in the Balance-Sheet as expenditure. To consider the Balance-Sheet: on merit now produced, would not amount to permitting to allow the production of document t at was not then available to the Company. In fact, Mr. Shafi for the Company admitted that the accounts for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67, had been audited by the Company's Auditors. If so, the Company could have easily produced the same.
6. It is true, bonus cannot be granted for future. The bonus is granted only after knowing the profit the Company has made, One cannot know if the Company will make profit in future or will incur loss. In the present case, no bonus has been granted for future. The demand for bonus is as under "The Company shall pay two months' pay per year as bonus from the year 1965 and onward."
7. The application for adjudication of the demand was made on 19th January 1967. The Financial Year of the Company according to Mr. Shafi, runs from July to June. According to Mr. Shafi, accounts for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67, were ready. The Financial Year of 1967, would end in June 1968. It cannot, in these circumstances, be said that there was and mistake apparent on the face of the record. The bonus was granted up to June 1968. The demand for bonus was from the year 1965 and onward. The Company cannot be said to have been taken by surprise in respect of bonus from July 1967 to June 1968. The evi--dence of Mr. Shaft was recorded on 13th November 1968.
8. I am of the view that no point has been made out so as to justify review of my order, dated 25th March 1969. The application is dismissed., Order announced.