1. AWARD The lst party (CBA) is represented by Mr. Mahboob Ali, General Secretary, Pakistan Textile Workers' Union, Hyderabad and his counsel Mr, The Federal Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of subsection (8) of section 22-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 referred the Industrial Dispute as a dispute of National Importance between the Pakistan Textile Workers' Union, Hyderabad and thfr Textile Corporation of Pakistan Limited, Hyderabad vide Notification No. S.R.O. (l) /74, dated 12th April 1975 for adjudication and determination as set out in the table given in the notification which are reproduced below:-- Tablb v 1. Payment of bonus equal to 180 days' wages for the year 1973-74 (lst October, 1973 to 30th September, 1974)
2. Increase in wages up to 50%. Since a strike was continuing in the mills for the last two months, it was prohibited as soon as the reference of the dispute by the Govemment was received in the Commission, and consequently the strike was called off. Notice was also issued to the parties to appear before the Commission on 3rd May, 1975 at Camp Office Lahore to lead evidence in the dispute "relating to payment of 180 days' wages as bonus. Later on, since the notice regarding dispute in respect of increase in wages was not issued, an opportunity was given to both the parties to lead their evidence. The first party examined the General Secretary (Mr. Mahboob Ali), Pakistan Textile Workers' Union. He stated that his Union which is CBA raised the Industrial Dispute in respect of bonus equal to 180 days' wages for the year 1973-74 (1st October, 1973 to 30th September, 1974) and increase of wages up to 50 %. The management refused to accept the demands on the ground that the mills have suffered loss. It was then stated that the workers have been receiving bonus from the management since 1968 onwards despite losses, and that the profit accrued to the Mills only once. The following figures were supplied by the witness in his statement. Year Bonus 1968 ... ... ... ... 30 days* wages. 1969 ... 30 Do. 1970 ... 50 Do. 1971 ... 60 Do. 1972 ... 95 Do. (including 5 days' ex gratia). 1973 ... 110 days' wages On the issue of increase in wages, the witness added that an unskilled worker employed in the Mills is drawing Rs. 165 as basic salary exclusive of CLA etc., the majority of workers are daily-rated, who are roughly drawing Rs. 6.37 per day. In this supplementary statement the witness admitted that each worker gets 12% Attendence Allowance in addition to Rs.
2. 85 p.m. as CLA. He has supplied the following comparative table in his statement : "The workers of Indus Textile Mills, Hyderabad are drawing Rs. 195 p.m. besides allowances etc. The workers of Mohammadi Textile Mills get Rs. 6.91 per diem. I may add that these wages are exclusive of other allowances. The 4-siders of our Mills draw Rs. 10.34 for each working day. The basic monthly wages of Indus Textile Mills are 285 p.m. The double-siders get Rs. 8.04 per day in Mohammad i Textile Mills, Hyderabad As against this, the double-siders working in our Mills draw Rs. 7.67 per day. The double-siders working in Indus Textile Mills are drawing Rs. 228 p.m. Since there is difference between the wages of our Mills and other Mills at Hyderabad, the invidious distinction may kindly be eliminated." The second party examined Mr. Mohammad Ilyas Qureshi, Director, Textile Corporation of Pakistan Limited who produced balance-sheets for the year ending 30th September, 1971, 30th September, 1972 and 30th September 1973 and also submitted pre-audited balance-sheet pertaining to the year ending 30th September 1974 alongwith certificate of Auditors.
3. This balance- sheet shows that the Mills suffered a loss of Rs. 44,10,007.47. He also produced the production chart from 1971-72 up to March, 1975. According to his statement the loss was mainly due to decrease in production and as such the Mills incurred a debt of Rs. 1,34,97,848.32 details of which are given in (Exh. R/6). He further stated that the loss apart from low production was also due to slump in the market and inferior quality of yarn produced by the workers. As a result of low standard and inferior production by the workers, the customers have refused to lift 2500 bails of yarn, lying in stock in the Mills. He also produced a comparative chart showing production pertaining to the year 1973-74 in other Mills where comparaiively less number of workers are working. The second party also'examined Mr. Mohammad Afzal Kayani, Admn. Officer, of the Mills who produced the chart showing rates of wages of the workers of different categories employed in the Mills. He stated that Noor Texiile Mills, Awami Textile Mills, Ziman Textile Mills, and some other spinning plants which are located at Kotri, consist of 2*000 spindles. He has also produced the chart showing wages being paid to the workers in these 3 mills. In cross-examination the witness admitted the clerical mistake in the Carding Line Man who is being paid Rs. 7.22 per day and not Rs.
4. 10.22 per day as given in the chart. He admitted that the comparative chart did not contain any details regarding Hyderabad Mills because there was no camparable unit there. He further admitted that the price of the yarn differs from plant to plant. I would first deal with the issue of bonus. The case of the first party (CBA) is that they are demanding customary bonus and not profit bonus. In support of their contention, they nave reiterated that except for one year the mills is always running on loss and in spite of that the workers were paid bonus since 1968. I have already held while giving award in the Industrial Dispute No. 9,6)/75-NIRC between the Cofcot Mills Mazdoor Union v. The Management that reciving bonus by way of usage or custom is not a predetermined right guaranteed or secured to workers. The right to receive such bonus is to be first determined and then provisions of section 34 can be successfully invoked to enforce the right so secured. The demand of bonus by way of usage is an industrial dispute as defined under section 2{xiii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and a reference ofA the said dispute for adjudication to the Commission is valid under law. Since bonus under loss is being paid since 1968, 1 have no hesitation to hold that the workers have become entitled to bonus by way of customary bonus.
5. Keeping in view that bonus was not paid at a uniform rate and also the fact that the respondents are facing financial difficulties, I am of the opiniou that ends of justice would meet if bonus equal to thirty-three days (33 days)' wages is paid to the workers at pro rata basis in the same manner as was paida in the year 1972-73, and I award accordingly. I further direct the second party to pay bonus on or before 15th June, 1975. The wages shall not include Cost of Living Allowance. Finally I would like to mention that the 2nd party has alleged that due to the accumulated losses, the Mills have incurred a debt of Rs. 1,34,97,848.72. It has also been alleged that this year the Mi Is have suffered a loss of Rs. 44,10,007.47 amongst other factors also due to low standard and inferior production by the workers as a result of which customers have refused to lift 2500 bails of yarn.
6. These allegations stand unrebutted. The workers should know that an industry cannot run in this fashion. It would not bei out of place to mention that if the workers in future contribute towards losslC by adopting "go-slow" or remaining on illegal strike, they would be disentitled' from receiving any bonus. As such the present award would not be cited as a precedent. As regard the second demand i.e. "increase in wages by 50%, the first party has pointed out that monthly-rated unskilled workers are getting Rs. 165 p.m. and daily-rated workers draw Rs. 6.37 per day besides 12% attendance allowance and allowance Rs. 85 p.m. as C. L. A^ As against this, it has been alleged that the workers of Indus Textile Mills are drawing Rs. 195 p.m. and those of Mobammadi Textile Mills Rs. 6.91 per day. In his supplementary statement, the General Secretary of the Union has further pointed out that 4-siders are drawing Rs. 10.34 per day while the same class of workers is getting Rs. 285 p.m. in Indus Textile Mills. Similarly, 2 siders are drawing Rs. 7.67 per day while in Mohammadi Textile Mills they are getting Rs. 8.04 per day. No effort has been made by the lst party to give details of different categories of workers operating in Blow Room, Carding, Simplex, Ring, Winding and other Departments. He has compared wages of only unskilled workers, 4-siders and 2-siders. To controvert the above claim, the 2nd party has filed comparative statement of wages of workers employed in Noor Textile Mills, Zaman Textile Mills and Awami Textile Mills. The statement of wages of the workers of the Mills of the 2nd party has also been produced. The 1st party has admitted these statements to be correct except in the case of Line Man in Carding Section where his wages are Rs. 7.22 but have been shown to be Rs. 10.22 per day. The witness for the 2nd party has admitted this mistake as typing error. When wages of the workers of second party are compared with those of the workers employed in Noor Textile Mills, Zaman Textile Mills and Awami Textile Mills, it is found that generally the wages of the workers of the 2nd party are on the higher side. In cross-examination the General Secretary of the Union has admitted that there is a Weaving Section also in Muhammadi Textile Mills that the number of spindles in Indus Textile Mills is 25000 whereas in his Mills the number of spindles is 12,400. Mohammad Afzal Kayani, the witness for the 2nd party has stated that the 3 Textile Mills i.e. Noor Textile Mills, Zaman Textile Mills and Awami Textile Mills, also consist of 25000 spindles. The Additional Director, Labour Welfare Department who was present during the proceedings of this dispute was asked whether the plants at Kotri and Hyderabad are situated within one zone of "minimum wages" and his reply was in the affirmative.
7. Mr. Mohammad Afzal Kayani did not produce any chart pertaining to Hyderabad Mills fpr the reason that there was no comparable unit. Considering the fact that the lst party has, in support of his claim, taken no other ground except that in Muhammadi and Indus Textile Mills the rates of v\ages of unskilled workers, 4-siders and 2-siders are on the higher side and that the wages of other categories of workers have not been mentioned by the lst party. I am unable to accede to the second demand of the workors specially when the wages of the workers in other 3 Textile Mills situate at Kotri which fall within the same zone of minimum wages are generally lower than the wages of the workers employed by the 2nd party. I may also mention that it is a common ground between the parties that the Mills is running loss since 1968 (except for one year), I see no justification in accepting the second demand of the workers regarding increase in wages. I, therefore, reject the same.