1. AWARD The Federal Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of subsection (8) of section 22-\ of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, vide Notification No. (1 )/75 dated 12th April, 1975 referred an industrial dispute as a dispute of national importance between Silver Cotton Mills Limited Workers' Union, Hyderabad and Management of Silver Cotton Mills Limited, Hyderabad for adjudication and determination as set out in the table given in Notification which is reproduced below:-- Table Payment of 180 days' wages as bonus to the workers for the year 1973-74 (lst October 1973 to 30th September 1974). On receipt of this reference, I prohibited the strike in the Silver Cotton Mills Limited, Hyderabad which was continuing for the last 2 months. Parties were summoned on 3-5-1975 at Camp Office, Lahore and evidence produced by both the parties was recorded. The lst party examined Baffiir Ahmed, General Secretary, Silver Cotton Mills Limited Workers' Union and closed their case. The 2nd Party examined Abdul Razaq, Manager and Abdul Ghaffar, Accountant of the Mills and closed their case. The 2nd Party also put in a preliminary legal objection to the effect that reference by the Government was vague, illegal and incompetent and that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of a local Union. They further took the plea that the 2nd party has not been given a copy of the reference and statement of claims of the Union and that no industrial dispute could be created on question of profit bonus as claimed by the Union as a matter of right for the reason that it is covered by law and clearly barred by sections 2 (xid) and 22(12) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and enforceable under section 34 of the said Ordinance. 1 would first dispose off this preliminary objection taken by the 2nd paity. A perusal of reference would indicate that it is not vague and carries no ambiguity.
2. Section 22-A(8) (c) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 reads as under "to adjudicate and determine an industrial dispute to which an industry* wise Trade Union or a federation of such Trade Unions is a party and any other industrial dispute which is in the opinion of the Federal Government of national importance and is referred to it by that Government." This provision of law is quite clear and empowers the Federal Government to refer any industrial dispute which is in the opinion of the Federal Govern-I ment, of national importance. Since the reference of the dispute is valid andr* legal, the Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference,! irrespective of the fact whether or not it relates to a local Union. In the notices issued to the parties, it was clearly stated that the Commission has summoned the parties to adjudicate an industrial dispute in respect of payment of 180 days' wages as bonus to the workers of Silver Cotton Mills Limited, Hyderabad. Neither any statement of claim was called from the lst party nor the 2nd party was called upon to submit a written statement. The matter was simple and both the parties were called upon to prodqpp - evidence on 3-5-1975, The last objection taken by the 2nd party is that no valid industrial dispute can be created on question of profit bonus. I overrule this objection too, on the ground that only an ind istrial dispute in respect of profit bonus as given in Standing Order 10 (c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance cannot be raised. The reference is in respect of 180 days' wages as bonus and not a bonus under Standing Order 10 (c) and as such the reference is not in respect of any guaranteed right. The industrial dispute was therefore raised in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I, now proceed to discuss the evidence produced by the parties. Bashir Ahmed, General Secretary, Silver Cotton Mills Limited Workers* Union on behalf of the lst party examined himself and stated that the Union had demanded 6 months* wiges as bonus for the workers pertaining to the year 1973-74 (1-10-73 to 30-9-74). He however stated that the workers had received bonus equal to 50 days' wages in 1971-72 (1-4-71 to 31-3-1972) although the mills had suffered a loss of about Rs. 19,00,000. Apart from this, they (workers) received 38 days' wages as bonus for 6 months from 1-4-72 to 30-9-72. Briefly stated, they received bonus equal to 88 days' wages for the period of 1$ years. During this entire period the Mills had shown loss. During the year 1972-73 (1-10-1972 to 30-9-1973) the workers received bonus equal to 91 days' wages. This year the Mills had shown profit. During the year under discussion for which bonus is being claimed, the Mills had shown profit of Rs 98,181 in the balance-sheet. The witness further stated that during the conciliation proceedings Mr. Jan Mohammad, Managing Director of the Mills had offered the Union a bonus equal to 45 days' wages to which the Union did not agree. He added that during the year when the Mills suffered loss, it has been given bonus for more than 45 days' wages. In cross- examination, the witness reiterated that bonus equal to 45 days* wages was offered by Mr. Jan Mohammad, Managing Director of the Mills in the presence of Mr. Abdul Razaq, Manager and Muzaffar Ali Shah, Deputy Director, Labour Welfare Department, Hyderabad and other members of the Union, and that Mr. Jan Mohammad, Managing Director had agreed to the suggestion of the Deputy Director, Labour Welfare Department to pay bonus to the workers equal to 45 days' wages.
3. He repudiated the suggestion that formerly bonus was given to the workers under pressure and coercion. The 2nd party examined Abdul Razaq, Manager of the Mills who stated that these agreements were entered into before the close of the year and finalization of the accounts. Apart from this, he said that they have been giving to the workers "Exgratia Participation Fund." The witness however, pleaded that bonus in the years of losses was given under coercion and pressure of the Union. He added that in the year 1973-74 the Mills have shown a profit of Rs. 98,000. He further said that the summary of accounts (Exh. R/I) does not include the depreciation allowance admissible under the Income-tax Law and in case the depreciation allowance is deducted from the profit shown i.e. Rs. 98.000 then it will eventually result in loss equal to Rs. 1,27,402. Giving details about the position of the last financial year, he said that the Mills had shown a profit of Rs. 9,9\402 in the year 1972-73 after deducting the amount paid as bonus equal to Rs. 6,81,261. According to this witness, the total profit amounted to Rs. 14,80,661 for the year for which 91 days' wages were given as bonus to each worker, but he said that this year was slump in the market. In reply to a Court question, the witness admitted that 20 lacs yard of cotton cloth has been piled up and it is worth Rs. 60,00,000. However, he could not say whether this amount was reflected in the balance- sheet or not. In reply to another Court question he stated that the Managing Director, in my presence did not offer 45 days* wages as bonus to the Union during the conciliation proceedings.
4. He however admitted that suggestion to that effect had been made by the Deputy Director, Labour Welfare Department, Hyderabad. The 2nd party also examined Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Accountant, who stated that the Mills had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,27,915 during the year 1973-74. If the loss accrued during the previous years is brought forward then there is a total loss amounting Rs. 13,87,108. In reply to a Court question, this witness admitted that Rs. 18,43,370 was shown in the balance-sheet as cost of 20 lacs yards of cloth lying in the Mills, when confronted with the statement of the Manager who had stated that the price of the cloth was Rs. 60,00,000 instead of Rs. 18,43,370, he stated that the quantity of cloth must be less than 20,00,000 yards. Soon after the conclusion of the statement of this witness, Mr. Abdul Razaq, Manager was recalled and when asked whether 20,00,000 yards of cloth existed at the close of the financial year ie., lst October 1974, he stated that he had deposed regarding the up-to-date position. Instructions were issued to physically verify stock of Silver Cotton Mills Limited, Hyderabad. The report of Mushtaq Ali Haidri, Labour Officer, who visited the Mills and verified the stock on 4-5-1975 and 5-5-1975 shows that 11,71,616J yards or 13,55,623 square yards of cloth and 1,23,955 lbs. of yarn was lying in the Mills. Ho vever, this report does not show the position of the stock on 1-10-1974. All the same a fair idea can be formed that the figure of Rs. 18,43,370 as value of stock is far from being correct and that the 2nd party has not submitted the true accounts. The admitted position is that 2nd party paid 50 days' wages as bonus for the period 1-4-1971 to 31-3-1972 and 38 days' wages as bonus for the period 1-4-1972 to 30-9- 1972 i.e., 88 days' bonus for 1-1/2 years, although there was loss of Rs. 19,00,000. In the year 1972-73 (1-10-1972 to 30-9-1973), the management paid 91 days' wages as bonus although the profit was Rs. 14,80,661. This year the profit accrued to the Mills is stated to be Rs. 98,181 according to the balance-sheet. But according to the statement of Manager, Abdul Razaq and Accountant, Abdul Ghaffar if depreciation as admissible under Income-tax Law is deducted from profit, it will eventually result in loss equal to Rs. 1,27,915. As discussed above, according to the statement of Manager, Abdul Razaq for which I have no reasons to disbelieve, stock worth Rs. 60,00,000 was laying in the Mills but as against this only Rs. 18,43,370 has been shown as a price of the stock in the balance-sheet, that would make a difference of Rs. 41,56,630 and profit would amount to Rs.
5. 40,28,715. The Union have laid emphasis on the fact that the 2nd party had paid bonus for the year 1971-72 in spite of loss. The contention of the 2nd party was that this amount was paid by virtue of a settlement which was secured under coercion and gherao. ln cross-examination by counsel for the lst party, Manager, Abdul Razaq admitted in the year 1972, 2nd party had made an application to Labour Court, Karachi to the effect that agreement entered with the Union on 20-6-1972 was under pressure and intimidation but the same was dismissed by the Court. From the evidence op record two conclusions cap be drawn j firstly if the version of the 2nd party is believed the Mills suffered a loss of Rs. 1,27,951 in that case, the contention of the first party is that as the Management had paid bonus equal to 88 days' wages in the event of loss in the years 1-4-1971 to 30-9-1972, the workers become entitled to receive bonus this time as well by way of customary bonus. Secondly if the statement of Abdul Razaq, Manager, that the value of stock was Rs. 60,00,000 as against Rs.
6. 18,43,370, shown in the balance-sheet, is believed, there is a profit of about 40 lacs. In that event the contention of the lst party is that the workers become entitled to profit bonus. In support of their demand, the lst party has contended that the management of the Mills had offered to pay 45 days' wages as bonus during the conciliation proceedings. Manager of the Mills, in reply to a Court question denied this fact and added that this offer by the Managing Director was not made in his presence. He, however, admitted that such a suggestion had come from Deputy Director, Labour, Hyderabad. I am inclined to believe the statement of the General Secretary of the Union, Bashir Ahmed that during the conciliation proceedings, the Managing Director did offer the Union a bonus equal to 45 days' wages. No evidence was produced in rebuttal. The 2nd party could produce Managing Director of the Mills and Deputy Director, Labour Welfare Department, Hyderabad to nullify the statement made by the General Secretary Mr. Bashir Ahmed'. I am therefore, of the opinion that the management earned a profit of about Rs. 40,28,715 and the offer of the Management as 45 days' \yages as bonus was on the low side specially in view of the fact that the Management paid 91 days' wages as bonus when the 2nd party earned a profit of Rs. 14,08,661. In my opinion, ends of justice would meet if workers are paid 45 days' wages as bonus for the year 1973-74 (1-10-1973 to 30-9-1974) and I award accordingly. I further direct that the said amount be paid to the workers on or before 15th June, 1975 in the same manner as was mutually agreed upon between the parties quo agreement dated 26-1-1972, Cost of Living Allowance would not be included in the wages.