1. AWARD The Labour Union of Rehmania Textile Mills Limited, Lyallpur, filed this application under section 32 (1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, raising a dispute for adjudication of 2 demands.
2. The Mills Establish--ment raised preliminary objections to the effect that the application had not been filed by the duly authorised person and it did not disclose any Industrial dispute. These objections were not pressed at the the of arguments. Both the objections are without force. The application was filed by the General Secretary of the Union and under the constitution he was a duly authorised person to file such application. A charter of demands was given to the Mills Establishment and as demands were not accepted therefore, there is an Industrial dispute between the parties. Both the objections are rejected.
3. Demand No. L-Recreation Allowance equal to wages of 2 months plus Rs. 85 as cost of living allowance for each month may be given.
4. It is an admitted fact that the proprietors owned to establishments namely. Rehmania Textile Mills and Rehmania Silk Mills. The case of the Union is that the proprietors follow the same policy in both the establish--ments in respect of terms and conditions of the workers. It was alleged by the Union that the workers of Rehmania Taxtile Mills, were given recreation allowance equal to one month's the wages and as such the workers of Rehmania Silk Mills were also entitled to get the same amount as recreation allowance.
5. I do not agree with the preposition that the workers of both the establishments have the same terms and conditions of employment. Both the Mills are independent units. In the Textile Mills there are 1300 workers whereas the number of workers in the Silk Mills is 92. The raw-material for the Silk Mills i3 imported whereas the raw material of the Textile Mills is indigenous. According to Mr. Mohammed Hanif, Accountant of the Silk Mills, the profit and loss statement, assessment statement of Income-tax and the participation funds are separately maintained in each unit. It was admitted by Mr. Habibullah, General Secretary of the Union that the bonus differs in each unit.
6. He said "in the previous year to months wages were paid as bonus in the Silk Mills, whereas 3J months' wages were paid in the Textile Mills." Similarly, there was difference about bonus in the year next before the previous year. There is a separate C.B.A. In each unit. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the policy with respect to the terms and conditions of the employment is not the same in both the units. If any recreation allowance was paid to the workers of the Textile Mills, it is not the criterion that the same allowance should be paid to the workers of Silk Mills.
7. On merits the Union has no case. There ate 65 Silk Mills in the District of Lyallpur and none of them has ever paid recreation allowance to its workers. On the same analogy the petitioner-Union is not entitled to receive any recreation allowance for its workers.
8. The last point urged on behalf of the Union was that the proprietors are the same as such both the Mills should be considered as one unit. I find no B force in this argument. Both the units are independently registered and they maintain separate accounts. They cannot be treated as one unit. The demand is, therefore, rejected.
9. Demand No. 2.----One suit length of cloth manufactured in the Mills, may be given to each of employees.
10. The demand was withdrawn.
11. Both the demands are rejected. Award announced accordingly.