DECISION The impugned Award was passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi on the 11th of April 1974 in an application under section 32(l-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). Mr. Wasi Ahmed, the learned Representative for the appellant-Union challenged the finding of the learned Court in respect of the two of the demands namely Demands Nos. 4 and 13. Demand No. 4 relates to the introduction of Provident Fund Scheme. The leamed Court disallowed the demand on the ground that the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 did not apply to the respondent concern as the respondent concern did not employ 49 persons at any time during the last l2 months. 2. 1975 Mr. Wasi Ahmed, the leamed Representative for the appellant, contended that admittedly Social Security Scheme has been enforced and, therefore, the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 did apply. There is no such Law or Rule. Social Security Scheme is applicable only on Notification by the Government. The question of number of persons employed is immaterial. The Government can make Social Security Scheme applicable even in cases where a concern or establishment does not employ 49 persons or employs only say five or six persons. In the second place in this connection Mr. Wasi Ahmed also contended that admittedly Minimum Wages Ordinance had been made applicable by the respondent concern. This also, to my mind, is no ground for the conclusion that in fact the respondent concern did employ 49 persons at any time. On the other hand the positive evidence produced by the respondent concern is in the shape of payment Registers which go to prove that at no time during the last three years the respondent concern had ever employed 20 or more persons. No case for Provident Fund Scheme is made out by the appellant-Union. The Award in respect of Provident Fund Scheme is, therefore, maintained.
3. Demand No. 3 is in respect of Bonus for two years i.e. 1971 and 1972. The demand, no doubt, as given in the Demand Notice is for two years i.e. 1971 and 1972. It, however, seems that in the Statement of Claim it has been confined only to 1972. It is always open to the parties to modify its demand in Statement of Claim. I would, therefore, hold that Union gave up its demand for 1971. What is stated in the Statement of Claim about Demand No. 13 is as under:-- ''After the promulgation of the Amendment Ordinance, 1972 of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968, the respondent have to pay the Bonus for the year 1972, but the same has not been paid till now."
4. It would appear from the above that the Statement of Claim in respect of bonus is based on the provision of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and also only for the year 1972. I have held that the respondent concern never employed 20 workers or for that matter 49 persons at any time during the last l2 months. 10(c) under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was introduced by amendment of 13th of April 1972. Mr. Wasi Ahmed contended that the claim for bonus as mentioned in the Demand Notice is not based on the Standing Orders Ordinance. It is not open to a party to improve its case in the Statement of Claim if the party so desires. In the present case the Union has improved its case by relying on the amendment under the Standing Orders Ordinance which as I have already observed does not apply to the respondent concern, Moreover Mr. Abdu) Sattar, a Partner of the respondeat, in his cross-examination stated that for 1971 and 1972 we have paid bonus amounting to Rs. 70 to each worker according to the Settlement. The Union has not produced the Settlement between the Union and the respondent about the Bonus. I have no reason to doubt the Statement of Mr. Abdul Sattar. The Award in respect of Bonus is, therefore, confirmed.
5. For the reasons given above the Appeal is dismissed.