1. ORDBR The General Secretary, West Pakistan Road Transport Employees* Union, served a notice of strike on Road Transport Corporation, Lahore on 10- 5-1968. The Conciliation Officer failed to bring about a settlement between the parties and issued a certificate of failure on 24-7-1968. Thereafter on 23-8-1968, the General Secretary of the Union, submitted an application under section 6 (8) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, for adjudication and determination of the demands mentioned therein. The learned Chairman of the Labour Court while adjudicating and determining the demands raised in the application amongst other demands accepted demand No. 1 which is to the following effect: "The G. T. S. workers posted at D. G. Khan should be given house-rent at the rate of 1\ per cent, of their basic pay with effect from 1-3-1964 as is being given in Lahore, Rawalpindi, Lyallpur, Multan and Hyderabad." Aggrieved by the acceptance of the aforementioned demand, the Road Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. The learned Representative of Road Transport Corporation appellant, contented that theyf had adopted Government Letter No. 1 (2)-N-G. I M P/71 dated 8 3-1972 received from the Ministry of Finance office in the matter of giving house-rent to their non-gazetted employees and since D. G. Khan is not mentioned in the Government letter, they had not given house-rent to their non-gazetted employees residing there. The extent of the aformentioned lelter is Exh. R/12 which is to the following effect: "(C) House Rent Allowance.--House Rent Allowance will be admissible, till further orders at Hyderabad, Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Multan, Peshawar, Quetta, and Rawalpindi, to all non- gazetted civil employees posted at, and residing in, the stations referred to above, at the uniform rate of 15% of the minimum of their respective National Scales of pay if they are not provided with Government accommodation." The learned Representative admitted that the Road Transport Corporation was not bound to adopt the Government letter and could change the established practice or to adopt any other policy. During the course of arguments before the Labour Court, the learned Representative of the appellant admitted that apart from the cities mentioned in the Government letter the house-rent was being paid to G. T. S. employees posted at some sub- stations. If this is so, I cannot understand why this discrimination is being made in the case of G. T.
2. S. employees residing at D. G. Khan. In an award given by the Industrial Court, West Pakistan, Lahore, between General Secretary, West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union, Rawalpindi v.
3. Chairman, Road Transport Corporation, Lahore (1), the following demand was accepted : "Demand No. 5. --This demand relates to the provision of residential accommodation or in lieu thereof house-rent to the staff permanently stationed at various sub offices. In support of this demand, Rana Bashir Ahmad, A. W. 28, has produced a list of the sub-offices, Exh. A-6, which are under the jurisdiction of the District Manager, Rawalpindi. He has stated that the employees working at these sub-offices are not provided any accommodation, and also not paid any house-rent allowance.
4. He has also stated that in Rawalpindi proper the Drivers are paid house-rent allowance at the rate of 1\ per cent, of their pay." The learned Labour Court observed: "The employees stationed at the sub-offices, as given in Exh. A-6 must have some house to live in. Unless they have got any house of their own they will be taking the houses on rent. It seems unfair that the house-rent allowance is not given to them, whereas the same is being given to the employees stationed at the above- mentioned seven places. We have scrutinized the list Some of these sub-o ffices are situated in cities like Sialkot, Mianwali, Jhelum, Wazirabad and Gujrat. We take (1) 1965 PLC 777 notice of the fact, that the rents have been increased substantially throughout the province. We accordingly accept this demand, and direct that they must also be paid house-rent allowance according to the notification Exh R-96." The learned Representative of the appellant further contended that cost of living was low in D. G. Khan as compared with Lahore and, therefore, the employees residing in D.
5. G. Khan were not entitled to house rent at the rate of 1\ per cent, of their basic pay. Similar point was raised in the aforementioned award and the learned Industrial Court made the following observation: "It was contended on behalf of the respondent that this allowance is being given at these seven places because the cost of living there is very high and that otherwise the house-rent is also taken into consideration while fixing the wages. If the latter position is correct, then why the employees stationed at these seven places are being given house-rent allowance. The respondent did nat lead any evidence before us that at the time of fixing wages, house-rent was also taken into consideration. In the absence of any evidence on this point, we cannot presume that the house-rent was, in fact, taken into consideration while fixing the wages of these employees." In the instant case the position is also the same because the appellant did not lead any evidence that at the time of fixing the wages, house-rent was,i in fact, taken into consideration. * j In view of the above, I dismiss the appeal and uphold the award given by the learned Labour Court