PAK WORKERS' UNION (C.BA.) MANSOOR AND AAJ TEXTILE MILLS, SHORKOT Versus GENERAL MANAGER, MANSOOR AND AAJ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., SHORKOT, DISTRICT JHANG

The decision dated 15‑4‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the industrial dispute brought by the appellant‑Union was dismissed. None has appeared for the respondent in spite of service of notice, so the appeal has been heard ex parte. The demands are as under:

(1) All the workers be paid bonus equal to six months' present pay for the years 1980‑81 and 1981‑82 and recreation allowance equal to two months' pay be paid for the years mentioned above;

(2) Settlement dated 25‑5‑1981 be strictly complied with and whichever has been settled should be paid to the workers;

(3) Wages of all the workers be adequately increased and scales be fixed a new with the help and consent of the Union;

(4) Attendance allowance and quarter allowance be reasonably increased, night‑shift allowance be sanctioned, and on the basis of production provision of reward be made;

(5) The workers be at once paid the wages for the period from 10‑6‑1982 to 10‑10‑1982;

(6) The resignations of any worker or office‑holder of the union should not be accepted without the attestation of the President or Secretary of the Union;

(7) Workers be sold 90 metres cloth at the rate of Rs.1.50 per metre and on the recommendation of the Union deserving workers be advanced loan of Rs.2,000 each on easy instalments;

(8) The subsidiary of the canteen be increased so that the workers could get cheap and better food and tea etc.

(9) The workers be supplied 50 fans, 50 cycles and 50 sewing machines on easy instalments;

(10) The quarters of the workers' colony be got repaired, guest house be constructed in the colony and rest shed be constructed so that the workers of night shift could take rest in it. Further, that the office of the union be furnished with furniture and library books and during emergency, union be allowed to use the Mills' vehicles.

2. In support of the demands only one witness namely Muhammad Aslam Wafa was examined, who did not give concrete and definite evidence about the profits of the respondent. He simply said that the Mills' production was about the target. He did not disclose what was the target and what was the production. Apart from it in such matters production is not material but profit is relevant. He gave instances of some other Mills but did not say what profits they gained and what bonus and facilities were allowed by them to their workers. Copy of the settlement of those mills are Exhs.P‑1 to P‑3 but since their profits are not known, the said settlements are of no use to the appellant. Proper thing was to call the record of the income and expenditure of the respondent mills to show the actual profits. Since this has not been done, presumption is that if the said record had been called, it would have disproved the case of the appellant

3. So far as demand No.2 is concerned, it could not be raised because if the settlement was not being implemented, the remedy was to bring an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. So far as demand No.5 is concerned, there is no evidence that wages for the period from 10‑6‑1982 to 10‑10‑1982 are due and have not been paid. PW 1 has not said even a single word about it. However, demand No.6 appears to be reasonable and does not involve financial implications. This demand should not have been refused by the learned lower Court. The demand is that resignation of workers an office‑holders of the Union should not be accepted unless they bear the certificate or attestation of the President or an officer‑holder of the Union. It would help to eliminating the chances of putting forged and coercive resignations. This practice would also help in preventing the workers to deny i the genuine resignations.

4. As a result the appeal is partly accepted ex parte and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, demand No.6 is accepted in toto directing that no resignation of any worker or office‑holder be accepted unless it bears the attestation or certificate of the President or General Secretary of the Union.

A.E./1523/Lb.P Appeal partly accepted.