Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR. 681 of 1980, heard on 19^thJuly, 1981.

‑‑--S. 32 (I‑a)‑Industrial dispute ‑ Adjudication of demands Demands for benefits and emoluments‑Labour Court to consider such demands on basis of comparable establishments‑State Bank of India declared as Enemy Property vide Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965 not transacting normal banking business‑Cannot be compared with other Commercial Banks nor recommendations of Wage Commission for emoluments of Bank employees applicable to employees of such Bank‑Award of Labour Court accepting demands regarding revision of pay scale, house rent, conveyance and washing allowances on basis of those admissible to employees of Commercial Banks, in circumstances, set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Abid Puri for Appellant,

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19^thJuly, 1981.

This appeal is directed against the award of the learned 11^thLabour Court, given on 30th August, 1980, awarding to the employees of the appellant bank 5 of the 12 demands made by them in their application under section 32 (1‑A), 1. R. O.

2. The branches of the State Bank of India in Pakistan have been declared to be Enemy Property and have been placed under the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property in consequence of the promulgation of the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965. There are 2 branches of the appellant bank functioning in Pakistan, one at Karachi and the other at Lahore. It appears that no normal banking transactions are carried on at either of the 2 branches and hence there is only a skeleton staff attached to each branch. The branches, however, shave nevertheless earned some income by investment of the funds at their disposal. On 11^thAugust, 1977, the employees of the Karachi Branch of the appellant bank served a charter of demands on the appel lant bank. As these demands were not acceded to by the appellant bank and subsequent negotiations also failed, the workers' union in the Karachi branch of the appellant bank filed an application under section 32 (1‑A), 1. R. O., before the learned Vth Labour Court, for adjudica tion of their demands the cast: subsequently came to be transferred the IInd Labour Court which allowed 4 of the demands claimed in full and partly allowed the 5th demand, rejecting the remaining 7 demands. The 4 demands allowed in full relate to revision of pay scales, house rent, conveyance allowance and washing allowance, while the demand which was partly allowed was in respect of the medical allowance. The 2 grounds which mainly influenced the learned Labour Court in allowing the above 5 demands were, firstly, that there has been no increase in wages emoluments of the employees in the Karachi branch since 1965, and secondly, that the Wage Commission for Banks had conceded all these to the employees of the commercial banks and there was no reason to deny the said benefits to the employees of the appellants bank. The learned Labour Court also took note of the fact that the bank had earned con siderable income by investing of its funds.

3. I have heard Mr. Abid Puri, the learned counsel for the appellant bank. The respondents as well as their learned counsel Mr. Hamid Siddiqi have remained absent, despite service of notice. Even on the previous hearing they had remained absent when I considered that one more opportunity should be given to the respondents to defend this appeal. I have thus not had the benefit of hearing arguments on behalf of the respondents.

4. It was contended by Mr. Abid Puri that there was no justification whatsoever for allowing the demands which have been awarded by the learned Labour Court and that the grounds on the basis of which these demands have been allowed are untenable. The learned counsel submit ted that since the appellant bank has admittedly not been transacting any banking business since September, 1965, its employees cannot possibly be compared, in the matter of enjoyment of benefits or emoluments with commercial banks which are transacting normal banking business. The contention is sound and must prevail. In the matter of awarding of benefits or allowing of demands, what the Court has to consider are the benefits, emoluments allowed to the employees in comparable establish ments. Although the appellant bank retains the appellation of bank, but being Enemy Property, it cannot carry on normal banking business. As such, it can neither be compared to the commercial banks functioning in Pakistan nor can the recommendations of the Wage Commission relat ing to the emoluments of bank employees and the benefits to be conferred on them either be made applicable to them nor can they be made the basis of adjudicating their demands. The only other comparable institu tion in this country appears to be the United Commercial Bank, which has also been declared to be Enemy Property under the control of the Custo dian of Enemy Property. An employee of the said bank Sadiq Ali was examined before the Learned Labour Court. An examination of his evidence reveals that he is not in receipt of better emoluments or terms than the employees of the Karachi branch of the appellant bank. He has admitted that he does not get any house rent allowance, conveyance allowance or washing allowance. His pay scale also does not appear to have been revised since 1965, when his bank was declared to be Enemy Property.

5. In view of the above position, there appears to be no materials on record in support of any of the demands of the respondents. The award of 5 out of the 12 demands made by the respondents is thus with‑IB out any valid basis. I would accordingly set aside the impugned award and allow the appeal. Before concluding, I would like to point out that the appellant bank has allowed certain benefits to the employees of its Lahore branch. A copy of the memorandum of settlement arrived at with the employees of the branch was filed by Mr. Abid Puri before this Tribunal. Since the Lahore Branch is a part of the appellant bank, the employees of the Karachi branch will at least appear to be entitle to similar benefits as the employees of the Lahore branch, for by no standard can it be said that Karachi is a less costly place than Lahore. Mr. Abid Puri stated at the Bar that the appellant is not only willing but would undertake to provide to the employees of the Karachi branch similar benefit as have been allowed to the employees of the Lahore branch the appellant‑Bank. In fact according to Mr. Abid Puri, the employees of the Karachi branch were offered the very same benefits and terms but the respondents refused to accept them. The refusal of the respondents to accept these benefits does not preclude the appellant bank from unilaterally giving the benefits to the employees of the Karachi branch. This is an additional reason why I consider that the appeal of the appel lant bank must succeed.

6. An amount of Rs. 15,000 was deposited by the appellant bank in pursuance of the order of this Tribunal granting interim stay of the operation of the impugned award of the learned Labour Court. Since the appeal is being allowed, the said amount is ordered to be refunded to the appellant bank.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.