Find a Lawyer

Application No. KAR‑38 of 1984, heard on 22^nd October, 1984.

‑‑‑Bonus‑‑Customary bonus‑‑No practice to pay customary bonus in Pakistan‑‑Eidul Fitr and Eidul Azha‑‑Festivals‑‑No custom to pay regularly bonus on such festivals and demand for bonus already rejected by Labour Court‑‑Appeal against order of Labour Court pending before Appellate Tribunal‑‑Workers Union meanwhile filing complaint before Labour Court under S. 7(2) and S.O. 10‑C(2) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 linking up distribution of bonus on occasion of Eid‑‑Labour Court initiating criminal proceedings‑‑5.0.10‑C(4), in circumstances, held, could not be invoked and criminal proceedings initiated by Labour Court were improper and legally questionable‑‑Appellate Tribunal in suo motu revision quashing proceedings‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 7(2) & S.O. 10‑C(4)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a).

1961 P L C 536 rel.

Mahmood A. Ghani for Applicants.

Abdul Majeed for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1984.

This is a suo motu revision of the proceedings initiated before the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi under section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, for an offence and or Standing Order 10‑C (2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

2. The arguments of learned counsel Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani and Mr. Abdul Majeed were heard today.

3. The facts of the case briefly are that Hyesons Electric Company Workers Union of which Mr. Abdul Majeed is the General Secretary raised an industrial dispute on 3‑1‑1982, incorporating 6 demands, demand No. 3 of this Industrial Dispute pertains to bonus and reads as under: ---‑

"Annual Bonus at the rate of 3 months gross salary should be paid to all workers. The bonuses should be paid in the first week of Ramazan and one bonus 15 days before Eidul Azha every year."

4. The industrial dispute resulted in the failure of the conciliation proceedings. Mr. Abdul Majeed in his capacity as the General Secretary of the Union filed an application under section 32(1‑a) of the I.R.O., 1969, before the Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi. The Sind Labour Court No. V after recording the evidence of both the parties gave the following award on the charter of demands pertaining to the bonus referred to hereinabove. Findings of the learned Labour Court are as under: --‑

"The respondent establishment has already suffered losses during the financial year ended 31‑12‑.1981 and as such the question of paying bonus to the workers is unjustified."

5. Aggrieved against the said award the union preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the arguments of both the parties and reserved the Judgment on 3‑11‑1983. In the meantime, Abdul Majeed without mentioning the facts that a demand for bonus to be paid in Ramazan i.e. Eidul Fitr and Eidul Azha has already been raised by the Collective Bargaining Agent but was dismissed by the Labour Court and that the same issue is sub judice in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, filed a complaint before the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who issued the summons in that criminal case. In this revision it has been argued that the criminal complaint is incorrect, illegal and improper under the circumstances that the matter was sub judice. It was further argued that Abdul Majeed who is complainant in the Labour Court was also signatory to the charter of demands raised in the Labour Court on behalf of the Union in which he had demanded annual bonus to be paid in the month of Ramazan and before Eidul Azha. Such a demand was rejected by the predecessor of the Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No.V. It was further argued that the learned Presiding Officer failed to appreciate that in the earlier dispute the bonus was linked with the festivals i.e., Eidul Fitr and Eidul Azha and even the present complaint tries to link up the distribution of bonus on these two Muslim festivals, merely because in the earlier industrial dispute the nomenclature "customary bonus" was not mentioned. There could be no customary bonus unless it is co‑related with festival.

6. It is to be noted that customary bonus was generally paid in India. It is not the practice to pay the customary bonuses in this Country. In a case reported in 1961 P L C 536, the Supreme Court of India have held that a customary bonus payment between the employer and his workmen must be connected with same festival. Eidul Fitr and Eidul Azha are festivals but it was never a custom to pay regularly the bonus and the demand in the industrial dispute was decided rejecting the bonus for Ramazan and Eidul Azha." Standing Order 10‑C(4) could not be invoked under such circumstances and the criminal proceedings initiated in the lower Court are improper and their legality is questionable.

7. After hearing the two Advocates, I have come to the conclusion that the criminal proceedings in the lower Court may be quashed and accordingly they are quashed.

A. E.

Revision accepted.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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