This is an appeal against the award dated 5-7-1975 of Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore.
2. An industrial dispute in the prescribed manner was raised by the Brooke Bond Employees' Union (Punjab), Lahore, respondent. In that dispute the following demands were raised:-- Demand No. 1.-Service Rules be framed.
Demand No. 2.-The Vanmen be compensated for the loss of income which they were getting from the sale of Iron Strappings now with-- drawn by the Company.
3. Demand No. 1.-This demand was conceded by the appellant by stating that the service rules in the process of bring framed and printed by the end of February 1975-In view of the above no award was called for on this demand.
4. Demand No. 2.-The appellant resisted this demand and pleaded inter alia that the said demand raised by the respondent did not legally constitute an industrial dispute and therefore the petition was not legally competent. On merits the appellant submitted that the said demand was legally not maintainable as it did not constitute an industrial dispute and, therefore, there was no justification for this demand. The learned Labour Court overruled the preliminary objection and accepted this demand by directing that every vanman be paid compensation @ Rs. 40 p.m. With effect from 1-9-1974 on account of having been deprived of the regular source of income from the iron strappings, which according to the long established practice used to be the property of the vanman.
5. Aggrieved by the above award the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Demand No. 2 was not legally maintainable as it did not constitute an industrial dispute. This contention has no force as the said demand was concerned with the terms of employment of vanmen and as such could be the subject-matter of an industrial dispute.
7. On merits the respondent's witnesses, namely, Ghulam Haider, Salesman, Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited, Rawalpindi, Matloob Hassan, Salesman, Depot No. 20, Lahore and Faiz Muhammad, Vanman, Depot No. 10, Baghbanpura, Lahore stated that wooden crates containing tea packets secured with iron strappings used to be received at the depots, that the iron strappings were given to the vanmen free of cost while the empty crates used to be given to salesmen till 1964, that thereafter the practice of giving wooden crates to the salesmen was discontinued and the salesmen were duly compensated by being given enhanced rates of commission, that in 1974 the company instead of using iron strappings started using Nylon string for securing the crates and that the vanmen were not compensated for the loss suffered by them after discontinuance of iron strappings. Ghulam Haider stated that in his depot vanmen used to earn Rs. 40 a month from iron strappings, Matloob Hassan stated that vanman posted at his depot used to earn an average income of Rs. 45 from iron strappings every month. Faiz Muhammad stated that in his case income from iron strappings was Rs. 50 to Rs. 60 a month during summer and Rs. 70 to Rs. 80 a month during winter.
8. Mr. Muzzafar Ahmad Bhutta, General Sales Manager, Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi, who appeared on behalf of the appellant stated that in the past they were using iron strappings for the purpose of securing wooden crates, that when the crates were opened at the sales depots some of the iron strappings were used for repacking of empty cases, while the rest were given to the vanmen free of cost as it was a waste material and that in August 1974 instead of using iron strappings for securing the wooden crates, they started using nylon string because the cost of iron strappings had arisen so much that they could not be bought. He admitted that in February 1973 a Circular Letter Exh. R. 1 was issued by the company wherein it was mentioned: - ---Old iron strappings and case shins.-Except where some of the above items are needed for Company's business, such as making out parcels etc., re-strapping the cases or making out bundles of empty packrites etc., the left-over of the above to items should be passed on to the vanman by his salesman--- He also admitted the contents of the other instructional memo. Exh. R2 dated 15-2-1973, wherein it was mentioned:- ---Iran, strappings and rose shirts.-Except where some of the above items are required for Company's business such as making out parcels or getting certain cases re-strapped or making out bundles of empty cardboard cartons the left-over of above to items always go to the vanman.
We know this practice is being followed by one and all at all depots. However, we are writing this just to bring this long established practice on record and advise your confirmation to this through the slip appended below.--- He further admitted that till 1964 wooden boxes used to be the property of the salesmen who were required to declare the income from this source in the return and that when these wooden cases used to be the property of the salesmen, the rates of commission to be paid to the salesmen were lower but in 1964 the ownership of the wooden cases was taken over by the company and the rates of commission to be paid to the salesmen were increased.
9. From the above evidence it is clear that it was a long established practice that iron strappings which were not required for the use of the company were given to the vanmen from which they used to earn a substantial amount of income and since August 1974 when instead of iron strappings, the nylon string was used, the vanmen were deprived of their income.
10. It is well-established principle of Industrial law that once a certain amenity is given to the workers it cannot be withdrawn from them except by the mutual agreement by the parties. In the present case the Company l unilaterally deprived the vanmen from their additional income since August 1974. It should also be borne in mind that the wooden empty cases in which tea was received at the depots, used to be given to the salesmen and after 1964 they become the property of the Company, and the salesmen were compensated by being given enhanced rates of commission. In these circumstances I cannot understand why the vanmen should also not be given some compensation for the loss of iron strappings.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that when salesmen used to receive wooden cases they were required to declare their income from this source and the rates of commission were fixed accordingly. In other words according to the learned counsel the sale of wooden boxes was considered as part of the rates of their commission, whereas in the case of vanmen the sale of iron strappings was not the part of their remuneration and therefore, they were not entitled to any compensa--tion.
12. The learned counsel forth: respondent, on the other hand, contended that the rates of commission of salesmen had nothing whatever to do with the sales of empty wooden cases, which used to be given to them till 1964. In this connection he referred to paragraph 3(c) of the terms and conditions of salesmen Exh P2 which reads as follows: - ---Salesmen On being posted in permanent charge of a depot, you will be paid an additional remuneration on sales made by you after deduction of the ---sales basis--- allotted to you for that particular depot, according to the scale in force at the the the remuneration falls due.--- From the perusal of the above it is clear that it has nothing whatever to do with the sales of wooden boxes because it is not mentioned that their remuneration was variable according to the sales of wooden boxes. Thus the evidence of appellant's witness stands contradicted by the above documentary evidence on the record and therefore there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
13. In the result I find no merit in this appeal, which is, hereby, rejected.