Case Details

Citation(s)
1960 SLG 248 1960 SLD 248 1960 PLD 14
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1959, decided on 17th November, 1959.
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ
Ihsanul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Amjad Hussain, Attorney for Appellant. Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ibrahim, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S. M. Hanif, Attorney for
Respondent

ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD.--Appellant

VS

THE CEMENT Labour court ASSOCIATION--Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial dispute-Employees' claim to bonus-Founded on alleged big profits, arrived at mainly by disallowing deduction on account of depreciation-Claim rejected-Depreciation fund­--Absolute necessity for industrialist. (b) Industrial dispute-Employees' claim to remission of rent of quarters provided by employer in own premises to a small proportion of employees-Such rent taken into account while fixing wages-Claim rejected. JUDGMENT CORNELIUS, J.-----The questions which arise in this appeal by the Zeal Pak Cement Factory Limited against the Cement Labour Association fall within a narrow compass and are stated as follows in the order granting special leave. " Two important legal questions arise for consideration in this case, viz., as to the existence of any legal obligation upon the Company, and of a corresponding right in the labour employed by the Company, of (i) payment and receipt of a bonus, either in the presence of, or irrespective of, a surplus of profits being available for the purpose ; or (ii) providing, and being provided with, free quarters, as an incident of the employment, enforceable through an Industrial Tribunal". Acting under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the West Pakistan Government had referred to a Tribunal under section 10, the following points of dispute, namely, as to :---- (1) the payment of bonus for the year 1956, the rate claimed by the workers being three months' wages ; (2) the remission of rent of quarters provided for their workmen by the Company ; and (3) the grant of 65 days' leave in each year to the workers. On the third point, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that the labourers were already getting sufficient leave, and if more were granted, "it would adversely affect the production which would affect the profits and ultimately labourers themselves". Accordingly, this demand was rejected, but the other two were allowed. The Labour Association did not appeal against the rejection of the third demand. On the first demand, the Tribunal had awarded a month's wages as bonus for a year's service, and pro rata for shorter service during the year 1956. This, in the view of the Tribunal, was "reasonable and justified".…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492