DECISION This is an appeal against an Award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. II, dated the 4th of April, 1974 in an application under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 1975 2. 127The relevant conclusion of the learned Labour Court necessary for determination of the appeal is as under :-- "So far as the financial position of the respondent is concerned the respondent's witness has admitted that in the year 1953 the paid-up capital of the respondent-Company was Rs. 1,00,030 (One lac) whereas in the year 1970, it was Rs. 20,00,000 (Twenty lacs). Admittedly this enormous increase was due to the profits earned by the Company and transferred to the capital accounts." This conclusion has not been challenged before me by Mr. Lodhi. The Balance-Sheet of 1973 (Exh. 22-C at page 153 of the record of the Labour Court) shows a Net Profit of Rs. 1,69,328,54. The Net Profit for 1970-71 for which year the demand for bonus had been made was considerable if not huge. It was Rs. 9,54,101.78. It was Net Profit (Exh. 22-A at page 149 of the record of the Labour Court). The appellant-company has admittedly paid 18 % of the wages claimed as bonus. The demand for bonus was for the year 1970-71 of 3-1/3 % of the total earning of the individual workmen. Thus only 15% of the wages has to be paid which comes to about Rs. 9,000. I would, therefore, considering the Net Profit for 1970-71 maintain the Award so far as bonus is concerned.
2. So far as the Award as to increase in Wages, House Rent, Conveyance Allowance is concerned it cannot be maintained Mr. Lodhi for the respondent Union admitted that the concern is a small concern employing only about 20 workmen. The General Secretary of the Union, Mr. Yaseen admitted in the cross-examination as under :-- "The appellant-company is doing business of import of T. V., Refrigrators and other electrical goods. It is correct that since the year 1971 the imports of the above-mentioned goods was banned It is correct that looking to the previous earnings of the respondents, the present earning is considerably low. The business of the Company, it appears, depends upon the Import Policy of the Go\ernment. It is not the case of the respondent-Union that the Company is a manufacturing concern as well. On an investment of Rs.
20,00,000 a Net Profit of Rs 1,69,328.54 cannot be said to be a huge profit (Exb. 22-C at page 153 of the record of the Labour Court). If the Award is given effect to, according to Mr. Lodhi, it w ill cost Rs.
37,000 every year. I think it would not be fair to burden the Company with an amount of Rs. 37,000, considering the Net Profit of the Company in 1973. The Award, therefore, in respect of increase in pay conveyance allowance, house rent is set aside.
3. The Award as to the sickness leave of I6 days is maintained. It is according to section 49 (4) of the Factories Act, 1934.
4. The Award as to Medical Facilities is modified to this extent that the workman and his family /. e. his wife and children alone will be entitled to the benefits of Medical facilities.
5. The Award as to Gratuity is maintained as it is in accordance with Standing Order l2 (6).
6. The Award as to Provident Fund is set aside as both Gratuity and Provident Fund cannot be granted to the workers.
7. The Award as to Group Insurance is maintained.
8. The Award as to three sets of Summar Uniforms and one set of Winter Uniform to Peons, Chowkidars, Drivers and Sweepers and one 9. For the reasons given above the Award of the learned Labour Court is modified to the extent mentioned in my above order.