1. AWARD This is a petition, whereby applicant-Union i.e., Collective Bargaining Agent in Sandoz (Pakistan)
2. Limited, Jamshoro is seeking adjudication of the industrial dispute.
3. The facts are that applicant-Union served a charter-dated 28-1-1975 upon the respondent, containing four demands. By letter-dated 5-2-75, respondent informed the applicant that they would like to have full charter of demands instead of piece meal demands. After the failure of bilateral negotiations applicant-Union served a strike notice dated 7-2-75 upon the respondent.
4. Assistant Director, Labour Hyderbad stated conciliation pro--ceedings between the parties. Since parties did not come to any settlement, the conciliation efforts ended into failure on 25-2-75.
5. Present application was filed on 6-3-75. On 10-3-75 applicant-Union served a new charter containing as many as 25-demands (not the subject matter of present dispute). On 27-3-75 respondent filed Application No. 8/75 under section 34 read with 44, I. R. O. 1969 challenging this charter. According to respondent, applicant was not competent to raise further demands, during the pendency of present adjudication. This application was however dismissed on 19-4-75 and matter is now pending before High Court in writ petition. By preliminary award dated 7-5-75.
6. Demand No. 3 was rejected by thin Court. Respondent has ended that since demands were vague, improper and unjustified, they were to be rejected.
7. In support of the petition applicant has examined Mr. Abdul Latif the General Secretary of the Union.
8. The copy of the the charter of demands, copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 25-2-75, the copies of the profit and loss account sheets for the year ending on 31st December 1973 and year ending on 31st December 1974, copy of the minutes of meeting dated 24-2-75, copy of the charter of demands dated 10-3-75, a letter dated 5-2-75, copy of the rules of the company, copy of the settlement dated 5-4-71, copy of the settlement dated 11-10-71, copy of the settlement dated 22-6- 73 and the list of the grades/scales from year 1970 up to January 1974, have also been produced.
9. On the other hand respondent has examined Mr. Deedar Hussain Qureshi the Administrative Officer who has produced a statement showing progressive increase in the scale of pay of all grades on year wise basis from years 1970 to 1974.
10. Demand No. 1.-Increments for the year 1974 be revised to eliminate injustice and discriminations, in consultation with the C.B.A. Union.
11. Demand No. 2.-Vacancies in higher grades shall be filled in by promotions from within the Department/Factory and direct recruitment shall be made in the lowest grades only.
12. Promotions be made on the basis of seniority, qualifications and ex--perience. Local residents be preferred in further recruitment."
13. According to rule 10 (1) of the company, increments are given in January every year. Rule 10 (2) of the company which is regarding promotions, reads as under :- "A workman may be promoted to a higher post/grade or selected to cross the efficiency bar in the grade pure y on Managements decision, based on merit and general suitability. No worker can claim promo--tions or selection as a matter of right."
14. Mr. Abdul Latif general secretary of the Union has deposed that respon--dent has always been making discrimination in the matters of increments and promotions. That junior employees having less experience and qualifications have always been given preference over the senior and experienced employees. Mr. Abdul Latif has alleged that this discrimination has bean done in all the sections of the factory i.e. pharma production section, quality control depart--ment, administration section, textile chemical section and engineering section. That Management has laid no policy for the promotions, though in every private concern or Government Department posts are filled in by promotions from within the department, because such policy is likely to increase the efficiency of the workers.
15. This is an admitted position that all the workmen concerned have already accepted and received their annual increments for year 1974 in January 1975. As it is applicant has also failed to bring any specific material on record regarding enhanced increments which has, been given to some of the workers. As far as respondent is concerned, he has resisted the allegations of discrimina--tion.
16. Even if for arguments sake it may be conceded that soma of the workers have been given increments and promotions in preference to others, the question is whether this amounted to any discrimination and whether Union was to be judge of this discrimination? It is quite true that the principles of seniori--ty-cum-fitness are to be kept in view, while granting increments and promo- -tions, but in the light of the rules of the company and as an employer, it is the exclusive prerogative of Management to be the sole judge of these matters. Similar is the right of Management in making promotions from within the Department and direct recruitments. Thus it is for the Management to see as to which of the workers deserved enhanced increments/promotions on the basis of their individual performances. Similarly it is for the to judge whether the direct recruitment would be beneficial Management within the department would be advisable.
17. Therefore it is promotions from, Union to insist that they should be consulted in such matters not open to them is to be followed. If such allowance would or the dictum laid by union, it would amount to granting of a licence to them to inter-fare to made in the administrative matters for the company. It is obvious that even otherwise these Demands do not constitute an industrial dispute.
18. Consequen--t the Court is not expected to intervene in such matters.
19. The Demands are therefore rejected.
20. Demand No. 2 (a)-Scales will be revised as follows w. e. f. January 1971:--- Selection : 600-60/4-480-80/4-1160 A : 450-50/4-650-60/4-890 B : 400-45/4-580-55/4-800 C : 350-40/4-510-50/4-710 D : 300-35/4-440-45/3-575 The present scales of pay are as under :- A: 320-19/5-415-21/3-478-24/5-598-28/3--682 B: 265-1515-340-13/3-391-20/5-491-24/3 --563 C: 210-12/5-270--1+/3-312-17-17/5-317-21/3---460 D: 190--9/6-244-10-/3-274-11/6-3413-12/3-376 E: 180-7/6-222-8/3-246-9/9-300-10/3-330.
21. Respondent is also running a concern at Karachi under the name and style of Sandoz (Pak.)
22. Limited Karachi and the scales of pay at the Karachi concern were as under: - A: 358-20/5-458-22/3-524 EB 25-649-29/3-736 B: 310-17/5-395-19/3-452 EB 22/54-62-26/5-640 C: 263-15/5-338-17/3-389 EB 20/5-489-24/3-561 D : 218-14/5-288-16/3-336 EB 19/5-543-23/13-500 E: 206-9/6-260-10/3-290-10-10/6-353--11/3-386.
23. This is an admitted position that by settlement dated 5-4-71 parties had agreed as under: "That a general increase of Rs. 30 shall be granted to all categories of employees from grade 'A' to 'E' and selection grade with marginal adjustment in the grade. This general increase will be effective from Ist January 1971:'
24. That by settlement dated 11-10-71 the parties had agreed as under
(i) That Management agreed to fix the minimum level for selection grade at Rs. 400.
(ii) A raise of Rs. 30 at the existing starting grade points for all the grades (i.e. A to E).
25. That by settlement dated 22-6-73 the parties had agreed as under :- "it was agreed that an across the board increase of Rs. 25 per month per workman will be paid as an allowance as from 1-11-72 to 30-6-73. Where after, the above allowance would be incorporated as part of the basic salary by lifting the existing scales correspondingly by Rs. 25 as from 1-7-73 as Annex. 1.
26. The following scales would be effective from 1-1-74 as Annex. II.
27. The Management agrees to guarantee a minimum increment of Rs. r annum for the selection grade staff with effect from 1-1-74."` This is also an admitted position that above raises given by the respondent were for the periods when the company was undergoing a loss and when the Government had already announced the benefit of the cost of living allowance. This is also an undisputed po3ition that for year 1974 the company has earned a profit to the tune of Rs. 10,51,806.00.
28. To start with applicant has failed to show any justification for the revision of the pay scales to the extent asked for under Demand No. 2 (a). Absolutely no evidence has been brought on record to justify this revision to the demanded extent. It has not been shown as to what were the grounds which entitled the workers to have the above scales. A step forward this is a settled position of law that in revising the pay scales wages paid in other concern in the same industry, is not the only criterion (1962 PLC 888). The wages are determinable upon region-cun-industry, basis only.
29. There- e fore employees of a company working at different places, cannot claim parity in wages as a matter of right (1965 PLC 326). This is also an obvious position that the conditions at Karachi and Hyderabad are quite different and the Karachi concern cannot by any means be called a comparable concern. Consequently applicant cannot claim revision of scales only by comparing their present scales with the scales which the workers of the same company are getting at Karachi.
30. Applicant has claimed that the respondent during the last conciliation meeting dated 25-2-75 had made an offer regarding the increase of pay of Rs. 20 per month to be incorporated as a part of basic salary by lifting the existing scales correspondingly. But respondent had disputed this claim.
31. It has been pleaded that with a view to arrive at a settlement, a package deal was offered in the form of flat rate increase of Rs. 20 per month in full and final settlement of all the demands subject to the further condition that a memo of settlement shall be executed by the parties for a period of 2 years.
32. The copy of the minutes of the conciliation meeting dated 25-2-75 is on record. It reads as under :- "The representatives of the Management stated that assuming this charter of demands as full and final, the settlement will be for 2 years and we make the following offers/comments - Revision of Scales.-We make the offer of an increase of Rs. 20 to be incorporated as part of basic salary by lifting the existing scales corres--pondingly."
33. It is also to be kept in view that when the second charter of demands was given by the Union, respondent filed an application with No. 8/75 challenging the second charter of demands. Thus keeping all the facts in view it is clear that the offer regarding the increase of pay to the tune of Rs.
34. 20 per month was not made in the form of a package deal.
35. In the light of above facts and discussion 1 End that there is a justifica--tion for the increase of Rs.
36. 25 per month with effect from January 3975, to be incorporated as a part of basic salary by lifting the existing scales corres--pondingly. That workers of selection grade would also be entitled to this raise. Award accordingly, which wilt be for the period from 1-1-1975 up to 31-12-1976.
37. Demand No. 2(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.).
38. Applicant has alleged that there is no proper classification or job description of the workers.
39. Consequently the skilled or semi-skilled workers are also called upon to perform other duty including unskilled work. As against this, stand of the respondent is that there was proper classification of the workers and this classification even otherwise was regulated by the relevant provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ--ment (Standing Orders)
40. Ordinance, 1968. That this classification is given in Annexure (R-9) with the headings "general and financial grades" and "techni--cal grades". That normally no workman is called upon to perform duty other than his own and in accordance with his own classification. Even if the worker is called upon to work in a different category it enables him to acquire different job skills and widens his experience, leading to better prospects in future.
41. I find that there was proper classification of the workman. However it was not possible to lay down job descriptions strictly. Even otherwise it was right of the employer to ask the worker to do any job which came within the purview of his classification. If decision of the Union is to be followed in such matters, it would amount to interference with the adminis--tration of the Management. Thus there was no justification for this demand. Hence it is rejected.
42. Demand No. 4."Canteen should be run by the Management. 0.35 paisas per meal be charged from each worker."
43. In order to justify this demand general secretary of the Union has deposed that in the other comparable establishments at Karachi the canteen is run by the Management providing food arid drinks at much cheeper rates. But in the respondent establishment canteen is being run through a contractor who is making huge profits though quality of the food is very poor.
44. This is an admitted position that West Pakistan Factories (Canteens) Rules, 1959 are not applicable with the respondent establishment as there are less than 250 workers. Consequently no duty is cast upon the Manage--ment to run the canteen itself. It therefore follows that there was no justification for the demand that the canteen should be run by the Manage--ment. For the remaining part of demand that only 0.35 paisas per meal be charged from each worker, it was incumbent upon the applicant to at least show as to what were the present charges, which were being paid by the workers. In this respect absolutely no evidence has been brought on record.
45. However during the arguments it came to light that for the lunch of 22 work--ing days the charges were Rs. 40 out of which 50% was being subsidized by the Management. Thus for each lunch (fixed menu) a worker had to pay 0.90 paisas. This is an admitted position that in Hyderabad Region there is no other pharmaceutical concern. While discussing Demand No. 2(a) it nag already been pointed out that establishments of Karachi cannot be called comparable concerns as there was a vast difference between the condi--u0ns of Karachi and Hyderabad. Hence for this reason alone that at Karachi concerns the charges were comparatively less, the demand cannot be allowed. In the last conciliation meeting dated 25-2-75 the respondent had made following offer to the applicant.
46. 'The Management is not in a position to run the canteen however regarding charges of the meal coupons, we make an offer that the workers be charged--30 paisas per meal provided that :-
(a) Each worker will be given fixed 22 meal coupons of 50 paisas each i.e. (for working days per month).
(b) Menu will continue to remain the same as present one.
(c) The Management will not be responsible for any dish or material other than the fixed menu."
47. It means that the workers had only to pay 0.50 paisas for each lunch Le. Rs. 11 for 22 meals and remaining Rs. 29 were to be subsidized by the Management.
48. Keeping all the above facts in view I am of tire opinion that general coupons of 0.40 paisas each for 22 meals should be given by the Management to the workers and the remaining amount of Rs.
49. 31.20 be subsidized by the Management.
50. Award accordingly, which will be for the period from 28-2-1976 to 31-12-1976.