GENERAL NEWSPAPERS EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI Versus GENERAL NEWSPAPERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI

DECISION

1. This appeal calls in question the Award of the Labour Court, Karachi dismissing the application under section 32(1‑A) of the I.R.O. containing the demands raised by the workmen of the respondent's establishment. The circumstances in which it has arisen are as follows:‑

2. The petitioner‑Union raised certain demands through a dialogue notice under section 26(1) of the I.R.O. and as no negotiations followed, a strike notice under section 26(3) was issued on 31‑1‑1988. Conciliation proceedings were taken up before the Assistant Director, Labour but the same also failed and a certificate to that effect was issued on 2‑10‑1988. All the same, the union Instead of going on strike, approached the Labour Court for the adjudication of the Industrial dispute. The demands raised were as follows:‑

3. "(1) Wages shall be disbursed before 5th of every month regularly. In case of delay compensation equivalent to the payable wages shall be paid in addition.

(2) 50% of the month wages shall be paid as advance on 20th of every month.

(3) Overtime shall be paid alongwith monthly wages.

(4) Bonus shall be paid for the past financial year 3 months total wages in addition to the Bonus payable under the Wages Board Award.

4. (5)Expenses shall be borne by the management for performing Haj, in respect of at least one employee every year.

(6) Any employee needing money shall be advanced loans equivalent to (6) six months wages recoverable in 24 easy instalments:"

2. The application was accompanied by the statement of claims in respect of the demands referred to above.

3. The respondents in their Reply Statement, inter alia asserted that the petition was not maintainable, and even denied that the petitioners were the C.BA., and as such it could not raise the demands in question. It was further contended that the demands raised did not constitute an Industrial dispute.

4. The petitioner in support of their case examined Irfanur Rehman, President of the Union, and Atiqur Rehman, Assistant Establishment Incharge and Badruddin Lalani, a Chartered Accountant from the firm of M/s. Ahmed B. Khan and Company appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Labour Court for the reasons given b it dismissed all the demands resulting in this appeal.

5. It appears that the demands No. 2 and 3 were not pressed before the Labour Court and the remaining demands came to be rejected. However, all the demands were duly pressed before me and shall be dealt with ad seriatum.

5. DEMANDS No 1 and 2

6. The question of the payment of monthly wages, is duly regulated under the Payment of Wages Act. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act reads as under:-

7. "Section 5. Time of payment of waves.‑‑‑

(1) The wages of every person employed upon or in‑‑‑

(2) any Railway, factory or Industrial establishment upon or in which less than one thousand persons are employed, shall be paid before the expiry of seventh day.

8. Section 11(3) of the Factories Act is also in the same terms and need not be reproduced. Nothing therefore can be done in derogation thereof and that would be the end of the matter. As for the Demand No. 2, all I need to say is that it is totally insupportable.

9. DEMAND No. .3

10. As for the overtime payment, that is a part of the wages and there appears to be no plausible reason as to why it should be paid on or by the 20th of the month as made out by the respondent. To my mind, it entails a breach of the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and Factory Act. I am therefore of the opinion that the system should be streamlined, and with a little effort the entire wages of the employees including the overtime payment should be disbursed by the 7th of every month.

11. DEMAND No. 4

12. It is to be seen that even the payment of bonus under clause 10‑C of the Standing Orders Ordinance, is dependent on the profits of the company, and if there are no profits, the call will go unheard.

13. There is a string of authorities from Superior Courts that if there are no profits earned by a particular organisation then it is not open to the Labour Courts or Tribunal to deeply dip into the pockets of the Employer, because that will be killing the goose that lays the golden egg. It has been pithily said that the aforesaid forums could not behave like benevolent despots, doing things only by the kindness of their heart.

14. Mr. Mehboob Rizi learned counsel for the respondent has cited the following case‑laws:‑‑

(1) Karnaphully Paper Mills Ltd. v. K.P. Mills Workers Union and others PLD 1961 SC 329;

(2) National and Grindlays Bank Ltd., Chittagong and others v. The East Pakistan Bank Employees Union, Chittagong and others PLD 1961 SC 383;

(3) Pak Industrial Mining Syndicate Ltd. v. Pak Industrial & Mining Syndicate Employees Union 1982 PLC 250;

(4) Sui Gas Transmission Co. Ltd. v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others PLD 1959 SC 66;

15. The only evidence on behalf of the petitioner is through its President Irfanur Rehman and he could not find any fault with the Balance‑sheet or the financial record of the company, as deposed to by Badruddin Lalani. The balance‑sheet for the year ending December 1986 shows the loss suffered by the respondent was Rs.75,253; for the year ending December 1987, Rs.14,162, arid for December 1988 it was Rs.2,58,572. Irfanur Rehman is totally silent about the financial position of the respondent. In this state of the affairs the demand for bonus on the mere assertion that there were huge profits made and went undisclosed, is not enough. I will therefore reject this demand as well.

16. DEMAND No. 5

17. As for the Haj, there is no gainsaying the fact that it is obligatory for an adult Muslim, only if he has got the means. Raising loans for its performance also, has not been encouraged by the jurists, much less look in other directions whether it 'be a Corporation, business establishment or for the matter of that the Government. It has hardly anything to commend. It is true that the 4th Wage Board Award demands had granted this demand in favour of a specified number of employees but so far as I understand their Lordships of the Supreme Court, had suspended its operation. I have not been informed that there is a decision of the Supreme Court so far. The matter could not therefore be agitated before the Labour Courts.

18. DEMAND NO.6

19. As far this demand, looking to the financial stringency, alone as borne out from the record, nothing is called for in that context and the demand has only to be rejected, as it was done by the Labour Court.

20. The appeal apart from the modification in regard to the payment of the overtime as referred to earlier, stands dismissed.

21. Orders accordingly, ?????

22. H.B.T./2127/Lb.S y ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.