The present application under section 32 (1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by the Brooke Bond Employees Union (Punjab) against the Chairman, Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited seeking award in respect of following 2 demands: - 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No. 2.-The Vanmen be compensated for the loss of income which they were, getting from the sale of iron strappings now withdrawn by Company.
2. This is a common ground between the parties that the Industrial Dispute regarding aforesaid to demands was duly raised by the petitioner----Union in the prescribed manner after serving the demand notice and the strike notice. The conciliation proceedings took place before the conciliator. As regards demand No.1 the Management conceded this demand before the conciliator and promised the framing of service rules in the near future. Conciliation regarding Demand No. 2, however, failed on 23rd December 1974 and the concilator issued the failure certificate accordingly.
3. Regarding Demand No. 2 which pertains to claim for compensation to Vanmen in lieu of iron strappings withdrawn by the Company, it is claimed in the preliminary statement and justification of demands by the petitioner-- Union that as a matter of long established practice the iron strappings were given to the Vanmen I his was a good source of income for them, without, any compensation to Vanmen the Management has withdrawn the iron strappings and thus had deprived the Vanmen of the lawful right which had accrued to them by practice whereas in the similar circumstances the other staff was duly compensated. It was thus claimed that Vanmen were also entitled to be compensated for the loss of income they were suffering on account of the withdrawal of Iron scrappings.
4. The respondents resisted the petitioner's claim and pleaded inter alia that the demands raised by the petitioner-Union did not legally constitute an Industrial Dispute and therefore the present application was not legally competent. On merits the respondent submitted that the Demand No. 2 was legally not maintainable as it did not constitute an Industrial Dispute and there was no justification for this demand.
FINDINGS Demand No.1.-As regards this demand it has been stated in the preliminary statement by the petitioner-Union that the management had already conceded this demand during the conciliation proceedings. The management has also submitted that Demand No.1 was already In the process of being fulfilled as the respondents-Company had already in--formed in writing to the petitioner- Union that the service rules would be framed and printed by the end of February, 1975. In view of this state of affairs no award on this demand is called for.
Demand No. 2.-Ghulzar Haider, Salesman, Brooke Bond (Pakistan), Rawalpindi, Matloob Hassan, Salesman, Depot No. 20, Lahore and Faiz Muhammad Vanman, Depot No. 19, Baghbanpura have testified on behalf of the petitioner-Union in support of this demand. These witnesses have stated that in the past since these persons were in the service of the respondent, T. Packets secured with iron strappings used to be received at depots. The iron strappingg was given to vanmen free , while the empty crates used to be given to salesmen till 1964. After 1964 salesmen were duly compensated for the discontinuance of the practices of giving of empty crates to them. In 1,974 iron strappings was discontinued and in its place the company started using Nylon string. The company had recourse to their change over from iron strappings to nylon string for securing the crates unilaterally. Mr. Ghulam Haider stated that in his depot vanmen used to earn Rs. 40 a month from iron strap-- pings. Matloob Hassan stated that the vanman posted at his depot used to earn an average income of Rs. 45 from iron strappings every month. Fiaz Muhammad stated that in his case income from iron strappings was Rs. 50 to Rs. 60 during summer and Rs. 70 to Rs. 80 during winter.
5. Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad Bhutta, General Sales Manager Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi appeared on behalf of the respondent. He. Stated that in the past he used to use iron strappings for the purpose of-" securing the packing in the cases. When the cases used to be opened at the sales depot some of this material used to be utilized for re--packing of empty cases while the rest of the material was waste and throw-able item from the point of view of the company. No record of such waste material was maintained. If any vanman wanted it, he could take it away. He further stated that in August, 1974 they changed over to another material for securing the cases in place of iron strappings. This change over was resorted to as the cost of iron strappings had risen so much that it could not be bought. He admitted that in February, 1973 the circular letter Exh. R I was issued that except where some of the iron strapping were needed for company's business such as making out parcels etc. Re-strap--ping the cases or making out the bundles of empty packrites etc. The left over of the strappings should be passed on to the vanmen by his salesman. The issuance of another instructional memo. Exh. R. 2 dated 15th February 1973 is not denied. In this instructional memo also it is instructed that iron strappings be given to vanmen. In this memo it is acknowledged that this was along established practice and this memo was issued to bring this practice on record. Mr. Bhutta has also admitted that previously empty cases used to be given to the salesmen but since 11464 the company started using carunwad dartons thereafter the instructions were sent to the salesman that the same be sent back to the company. He consented that company paid compensation to the salesmen keeping in view the income being earned by them from this source.
6. From the parties evidence it is sufficiently established that till 1974 10the certosuted and crates received at depots used to be secured in iron strappings. This item except for some strappings rewire a for securing the empty crates to be sent back to the company used to be given to the vanmen free of cost. The vanmen by disposing of iron strappings earned Rs. 40 to 80 p. m. In August, 1974 the company discontinued the use of iron strappings and switched over to the nylon string for securing the cases. No compensation has however been paid to the vanmen for the loss of income, which they have suffered on account of this change over on the part of the company it is also evident from the parties evidence that salesmen in the past were given empty crates as iron strapping were given to vanmen. The practice of giving of empty crates to salemen was discontinued in 1974 but while doing so the salesmen were duly compensated.
7. The point for determination is as to whether vanmen are entitled to be compensated for iron strappings. As already stated by the change over from the system of securing of crates by iron strappings to such securing by nylon string, vanmen who used to be given iron strappings free of cost, suffered the loss of income which they earned by disposing of the iron strap--pings.
Salesmen have been compensated by the company when the company discontinued the practice of giving of empty crates to salesmen. Keeping in view the precedent of salesmen the vanmen would appear to be entitled to the compensation for the loss which they have suffered on a count of non-provision of iron strappings to them on account of change o*r of system since August, 1974.
Their entitlement to compensation is further supported by the fact that the company itself has acknowledged in instructional memo. Exh. R, 2 that this was long established practice that iron strappings were the property of vanmen. In Panno Woollen Mills Workers' Union v. Bannoo Woollen Mills, Bannoo (1962 L L C 88) it was held by the then Industrial Court of West Pakistan that it was an elementary 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.
8. The respondent's plea that the demand of the petitioner union regar--ding compensation for iron strapping does not legally constitute industrial dispute appears to be devoid of any force as much as, this demand is concerned with the terms of employment of vanmen.
9. As regards the question of compensation it is observed that accor--ding to the statements of witnesses produced by the petitioner-Union each vanman used to earn Rs. 40 to 80 a month from the source of iron strap--pings. No evidence has been led in rebuttal by the respondent. Since the company has been compelled to do away with the use of iron strappings on account of rising cost of this packing material it would be in the interest of justice that the compensations to vanmen be awarded on the basis of minimum which they used to earn from this source.
10. 1n the light of what has been said above, it is awarded that every vanman be paid compensation at Rs. 40 p. m. With effect from- 1st September, 1974 on account of having been deprived of regular source of income from the iron strappings which according to the long established practice used to be the property of the vanman.