1. AWARD By present application, Sandoz (Pakistan) Employees' Union, Jamshoro I.e. the Collective Bargaining Agent, is seeking adjudication of the industrial dispute, in respect of following demands; "Demand No. 1-Increments for the year 1974 be revised to eliminate injustice and discrimination in consultation with the Collective Bargaining Agent Union.
2. Demand No. 2.-(a) Scales will be revised as follows with effect from January 1975.
3. Selections600-60/4-840-80/4-1,160 A456--50/4-650-63/4-890 B400-45/4-580-55/4-800 C350-40/4-510/4 -710 D300-35/4-440-45/3-575
(b) Vacancies in higher grades shall be filled by promotions from within the Department/Factory and direct recruitment shall be made in the lowest grades only.
4. Promotions will be made on the basis of seniority/qualifications and experience. Local residents will be preferred in future recruitment.
(c) Proper classification and designation shall be introduced for all employees with their job description in writing in consultation with the Union (C. B. A )
5. Demand No. 3 -Bonus equivalent to 2 months salary for the production of 1975 be given to each workman.
6. Demand No. 4.-Canteen should be run by the Management. 0.35 paisas per meal be charged from each worker."
7. The admitted facts are that the applicant raised the "industrial dispute" in the prescribed manner for the above demands. That after strike notice was given, Assistant Director Labour (Conciliation)
8. Hyderabad called joint meetings of the parties. That the last conciliation meeting dated 25-2-75 ended into failure therefore prevent application was filed on 6-3-75.
9. Respondent has challenged maintainability of the application on the following grounds :--
(i) That demand No. 1, apart from being vague interfered with the right of Management to grant increment. Hence it could not be raised.
(ii) That demand No. 1 (a) was vague and unreasonable.
(iii) That demand No. 2 (b) interfered with the exclusive right of the management to recruit the workers and therefore could not be raised.
(iv) That demand No. 2 (c) being outside the scope of an "Industrial Dispute", could not be raised
(v) That demand No. 3 in fact was a statutory right given under Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. As such it could not be made subject matter of an "Industrial Dispute."
(vi) That demand No. 4 being unjustified, was liable to be rejected.
10. I have heard the representatives of the parties at length and also gone through their pleadings.
11. Demand No. 3 is in respect of bonus: Now right to receive bonus has been provided under Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
12. Ordinance 1968. Standing Order 10-C (1975 PLC 205) is meant for statutory profit bonus, while Standing Order 10-C (iv) deals with the rights to receive bonus other than statutory profit to which workers may be entitled in accordance with the terms of their employment or any settlement or an award of a Labour Court. Thus it is clear that right to receive every kind of bonus, is covered by the provi--sions of Standing Order 10-C. Thus it is evident that bonus is a guaranteed right under Standing Orders therefore this right cannot come within the definition of "industrial dispute" as given under section 2 (xiii) I. R. O. 1969.1 Consequently it cannot be made subject-matter of an industrial dispute". In this respect I stand supported by the observations of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi made in Appeal No. KAR-605 of 1975 i.e. Jhonson and Jhonson Employees' Union v.
13. Messrs Jhonson and Jhonson (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi (1) which are as follows: "Where the law itself guarantees some right in favour of a party, the question of bargain would not arise. I would hold that the right to receive bonus under section 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, (herein-- after called the Standing Orders Ordinance), had been granted under certain circumstances to the labour. This cannot be subject-matter of negotiations between the parties."
14. I therefore find that demand No. 3 cannot be raised under the present application.
15. Respondent has conceded that demand No. 2 (a) can be raised. Regarding the remaining demands the only plea of the respondent is that either they are vague and unjustified or interfered with the rights of Management. As it is the question of the vagueness and non justification of demands can only be decided after evidence is recorded. Evan otherwise objections raised by respondent are mixed questions of facts and law. Hence evidence is necessary. Consequently it would not be proper to brush aside these demands at this stage simply on the plea that they are vague and unjustified. I therefore find that except demand No. 3, all other demand could be made subject matter of "industrial dispute" and raised under the present application. Preliminary objections stand disposed off in the light of these observations. Preliminary award accordingly.
16. Matter is put off to 16-5-1975 for evidence in respect of all the demands except No. 3.