Regal Manufacturing Company Workers' Union hereinafter referred to as the petitioner Union has brought the under-consideration application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the Manage--ment of Messrs Regal Manufacturing Co. 130-Ferozepur Road, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, praying that a direction might be issued to the respondent to pay wages for weekly holidays i.e. Sunday to all the workers of the establishment from the date of signing of settlement dated 13th May, 1974 executed between the parties.
2. It is contended by the petitioner-Union that on 13th May, 1975 a settlement was arrived at between the parties during the conciliation procee--dings. According to said settlement it was agreed with regard to demand No. 6 that the petitioner Union was at liberty to take the matter to the Court of Law for decision. Demand No. 6 pertains to weekly holiday with pay. It has been further pleaded by the petitioner-Union that by virtue of the provi--sions of section 35 of the Factories Act, the workers were entitled to be paid weekly holiday and that all the porkers were paid on daily wages basis but they were not being paid for the Sundays. It has also been claimed by the petitioner-Union that it was a registered Trade Union and being the only registered Trade Union in the respondent's establishment and having its members more than 3/8 of the total workmen employed in the establish--ment was the Collective Bargaining Agent.
3. The respondent resisted the petition and pleaded Inter alia that the peti--tioner Union was not certified to be Collective Bargaining Agent for the respon--dents company and therefore it bad no locus standi to raise the present dispute and further that no right guaranteed or secured to the petitioner-Union under any law or award or settlement had been denied to it and as such the applica--tion was not maintainable.
4. On merits the respondent pleaded that the workers were on daily wages basis and therefore they were not entitled to any holiday with pay.
5. Tariq Majid, General Secretary of the petitioner-Union appeared as P. W. I. and produced, Exh. P I photostat copy of the registration certificate. He stated that there were about 40 workers employed in the respondent's factory and all of them were members of the petitioner-Union. He further deposed that the Management had executed a settlement with the petitioner --Union on 13th May, 1974, copy where of is Exh. P.
3. He disclosed that no wages were paid by the Management to the workers for weekly holiday'.
6. No evidence has been led in rebuttal by the respondent.
7. The first point for determination is as to whether the petitioner-Union in the absence of a certificate of being a C. B. A. is to be deemed as the C. B. A. in the respondent's establishment. In this behalf the claim of the petitioner-Union is that it is the only registered Trade Union in the respon--dent's establishment and that it bad its memberships more than 3/8 of the total workmen employed in the said establishment. Section 22(1) of the I. R. O. provides that where there is only one registered Trade Union in an establishment or a group of establishments, that Trade Union shall, if it has its members not less than of the total members of workmen employed in such establishment or group of establishment [upon an application made in this behalf be certified by the Registrar in prescribed manner] to be C. B. A. for such establishment or group It is noteworthy that prior to the amend--ment brought about by Ordinance IX of 1974 for the words shown in the square their existed words "be deemed." Obviously the amending Ordinance XIX of 1974 has the perspective effect and has not retrospective effect. The petitioner was certified as registered Union on 11th March. 1972. Total number of workmen employed in the respondent, establishment were members of this Union. The respondent acknowledging the petitioner-Union as the Collective Bargaining Agent executed the settlement dated 15th March, 1974 copy thereof is Exh. P.
3. In the circumstances the petitioner-Union was already C. B. A. when the amending Ordinance XIX of 1974 came into force on 10th October, 1974. It is therefore concluded that the petitioner Union is the C. B.
A. for the respondent establishment and the objection raised to this effect by the respondent is overruled.
8. The second preliminary objection raised by the respondent is that no right guaranteed or secured to the petitioner-Union under any law, award or settlement is being sought to be enforced through present petition. It is evident from the contents of the settlement Exh P. 3, that the petitioner-Union raised demand No. 6 regarding weekly holiday with pay, it was agreed between the parties through the settlement Exh. P 3 that the Union would be at liberty to take this matter to the Court of law for decision. It has been urged by the petitioner-Union that by virtue of the provisions of section 35 of the Factories Act, the workers to whom the petitioner-Union represents are entitled to be paid weekly holiday. This would show that through the present petition the petitioner-Union seeks to enforce the right guaranteed/secured to it by the settlement dated 15tb March, 1974 (copy Exh. P 3) read with section 35 of the Factories Act, 1934.
9. As regards the merits of the case, section 35 of the Factories Act provides that no adult worker shall be required to work in a factory on Sunday unless he had or will have a holiday for a whole day on one of the 3 days immediately before or after that Sunday. The aforementioned provisions clearly show that weekly holiday has been made compulsory. There seems to be no point in making weekly holiday compulsory by the legislation if the holiday is to be without payment. It appears to be the clear intention of the law makers that an employer may not allow to his workers a weekly holiday but must pay for the same. In the Premier Tobacco Co. Ltd., Mardan v. Premier Tobacco Workers' Union (1970 PLC 126) Industrial Appellate Tribunal of West Pakistan held that under section 35 of the Factories Act, 1934 daily-rated workmen are entitled to wages for Sunday. It was observed that the underlying idea under section 35 of the Act was to help the workman and not to deprive him of his wages and thereby reduce leis income. The daily-rated workers generally belong to persons who must work for every day to work enough to get food and clothes however meagre for them and their families. They can not afford luxury of enjoying a holiday without earning anything for four days in a month. The law does not make any distinction between the daily-rated workers and monthly rated workers. I
10. In the light of what has been said above, it is concluded that the workmen employed by the respondent's establishment on daily wages basis are entitled to be paid weekly holidays i.e. Sundays.
11. In this view of the matter, the application of the petitioner Union is accepted and it is directed that the respondent shall pay wages for weekly holidays i.e. Sundays to all the workers of his establishment from the date of signing of the agreement dated 15th March, 1974.