DECISION This is an appeal against an' award of the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated 4th October 1973. The short point for consideration in this case is the interpretation of clause
(4) of section 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance). It runs as under :-- "Nothing in' this section shall be deemed to affect the right of any workman to receive any bonus other than that payable under clause (1), to which he may be entitled'in accordance with the terms of his employment or any usage or any settlement or an award of a Labour Court established under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. "
2. The learned Labour Court only considered the word "usage** in the above and came to the conclusion, after relying on my decision in a case, that usage in order to be a usage must be ancient and invariable. The word "or" as it appears in clause
(4) of section 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance is disjunctive and not conjunctive. Mr. Ali Amjad, fori the appellant, contended that the word "or" appearing in clause (4) ofW section 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance is disjunctive. This is so. On the] other hand, Mr. M. A. Khan, for the respondent, submitted that the intention of the Legislature was not to give two bonuses, but only one. In this connection, he made a reference to a decision of this Tribunal in which I made observation, in the circumstances of that case, that it would not be fair and equitable to give double bonus. The language, however, of clause (4) of section 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance, does not support the contention of Mr. M. A. Khan. Where the language of statute is clear, even if it leads to any hardship, it cannot be interpreted except as it may appear to be. The Court will not be right to interpret it in a way to meet the exigencies of time or hardship. To me, clause (4) of section 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance appears to confer a right on the workers to g receive bonus as given in clause (1) of section 10-C of the Standing Orders a Ordinance over and above the one payable under any award or agreement. Mr. Khan also made a reference to the scheme of the Standing Orders Ordinance. In this connection, he referred to section 3 and section 9 of the Standing Ordeis Ordinance. Section 3 lays down that Standing Orders Ordinance will be enforceable. Section 9 gives protection to existing condi- c tions of employment.
According to section 9 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, if anything more favourable has been conferred under the Standing Orders Ordinance that will not affect anything given by the award or agreement. In other words, Standing Orders Ordinance will have preference. The contention of Mr. Khan, therefore, that the scheme of the enactment supports his contention, is not correct. No other point was urged by Mr. Khan in support of the conclusion of the learned Presiding Officer. I would set aside the award and hold that the appellants are entitled to the statutory bonus together with the one they are getting under the agreement.
3. In the result, the award of the learned Labour Court is set aside. The respondent to pay bonus for the year 1971-72 under the settlement as well as the statutory bonus under clause (4) of section 10-C of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Appeal allowed.