DECISION This appeal has been filed by the Workers* Union against the Award dated 28th of October 1974, given by Second Labour Court, Karachi.
2. The Union had raised an Industrial Dispute raising certain demands. The Management did not agree. The conciliation proceedings failed and, therefore, an application under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was made to the Labour Court. The application was resisted. The Labour Court after recording the evidence allowed certain demands and rejected the remaining demands.
3. At the outset of the arguments Mr. Izhar Ahmed, who was representing the Union, pressed only one demand relating to bonus and did not press the remaining demands. It was urged by him that although according to the evidence tendered by the Management there was loss but according to the custom, practice or usage the Workers were entitled to claim bonus. There is no force in this contention. In the statement of demands agitated before the Labour Court the claim for bonus was based on section 10-C of the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance and it was for the first time at the time of arguments before the Labour Court that the ground for the claim for bonus was shifted to custom, usage and practice. Consequently the Labour Court rejected the demand. The view taken by the labour Court cannot be assailed. It is a settled position that the custom which can be recognised as a rule of law modifying the ordinary law must be ancient and invariably pleaded before the trial Court apart from the fact that a clear and unambiguous evidence must be given in support of its existence. Any such plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the time of arguments.
4. Even otherwise the custom, usage or practice have not been established. Custom to have the force of law must be proved by reliable evidence of repeated act openly done which had been assented and submitted to in such a manner as to lead to the conclusion that the usage had by agreement or otherwise become the local law of the place in respect of persons or things which it concerns.
5. When this rule was pointed out to the learned Representative of the Union, he invited my attention to the Agreement arrived at between the parties during the last year when bonus was said to have been allowed even though the Management had suffered loss. In my view this solitary instance is hardly sufficient to establish custom, usage or practice. It cannot be said to be of long standing or recognised. There is also no evidence to supportB this contention. The evidence on which reliance was placed does not help the Union. What was stated by the witness for the Management was that ten days* wages as ex gratia Payment had been allowed to the Workers. In the re-examination it was further stated that this was according to the agreement. I have perused the Agreement and it shows that it was clearly stated that the Union was not entitled to claim bonus either legally or otherwise nor it would make precedent in future. Thus no case for bonus has been made out.
6. In the result I dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.