DECISION This is an appeal under section 37(3) of the I.R.O, against the award of the Labour Court.
The Union raised an industrial dispute by serving notice of demands followed by strike notice. The conciliation proceedings having failed an application was made to the Labour Court on 6th of November, 1972 for the adjudication of the demands. In all 19 demands were raised. The respondent resisted the demands. On assessment of the evidence Demands Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were allowed while the rest of the demands were rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the demands the Union filed the present appeal.
2. At the time of the arguments the representative for the Union did not press Demands Nos. 6, 7,14, 17 and 19. I, therefofd^xonfine myself to the remaining demands.
3. Demand No. 5 requires the fixation of minimum wages at Rs. 140 per month. West Pakistan Payment of Wages Ordinance is not applicable as there are only four employees. No case has been made out for the increase in wages. It has not been established that the respondent is making any profit. The respondent concern is running liquor bar and the employees get substantial tips from the customers. Moreover since the raising of the dispute cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs. 110 has been granted by the Government.
4. So far Demand No. 8 is concerned the union claims night allowance at the rate of Rs. 50 p.m., conveyance allowance at the rate of Rs 15 p.m. and house rent allowance at the rate of Rs. 15 p.m. There is no justification to allow these demands.
No evidence of comparable concern has been led. It is] proved that the Management is making no profit. The employees are gettingU substantial profit by way of tips as already indicated. | 5.
Demand No. 9 relates to the grant of bonus. It is a settled principlel that bonus is granted if any profit is made. Since there is no profit the demand!# also fails. I 6. Demand No. 10 relates to the grant of Gratuity for each year payable at the time of retirement, termination or dismissal. This also depends upon the condition that profit is made. I, therefore, order that the gratuity! at the rate of one month's salary per annum shall be calculated for the yearlc in which profit is made and paid at the time of retirement or termination' of service.
7. Demand No. 11 relates to provident fund but it was rightly rejected by the trial Court as no evidence was brought on record that any comparable cencern had introduced any such scheme.
8. Demand No. l2 relates to the Medical Facilities. This demand was rejected by the Labour Court but I am of the view that in modern time the grant of medical facility has become part of the terms of contract. I, therefore, order that Rs. 15 p.m. as Medical Allowance shall be payable to every employee of Messrs Paris Bar and Jamshed Bar only as Messrs Winner BarD is already covered by Social Security Scheme.
9. Demand No. 13 relates to Group Insurance Scheme, to be enforced The work which is being undertaken by the employees does not incur any E risk of injury or death. So there is no force in the demand.
10. Demand No. 15 relates to the payment of profit at the rate of Rs. 2\% from 24-7-1968, the date on which Companies Profit (Workers Participation) Act, 1968 was enforced. The aforesaid Act is not applicable and without any profit no such benefit can be allowed.
11. Demand No. 18 requires the Company to bear all expenses for prosecution or defence in relation to any incident occurring during the working hours. There seems to be no justification for allowing this demand.
12. In the result the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent indicated and the appeal stands disposed of.