1987 PLP 361 (PLC)

3. It was further submitted that a dispute and difference about the interpretation of para. 106 of the Award has also arisen. The said Wage Commission Award discontinued the Leave Fare Assistance and Rest and Recreation Allowance. It was contended that those employees who had obtained the aforesaid allowance between 1‑1‑1983 to 1‑1‑1984 calculated on the basis of the old pay scales were now entitled to the difference due to increase in their pay with effect from 1‑1‑1983. This matter was also referred to the Anamolies Committee. The said Committee after hearing both the parties, gave their own interpretation and upheld the views of the management. The applicants have not agreed with this interpretation and have prayed that under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969., the relevant provisions of the Third Wage Commission Award for the Corporations may be interpreted so as to remove the difficulties and differences already arisen between the parties. The two applications were heard together.

4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the applications are not maintainable under section 50 of the said Ordinance. In support of this contention, they have relied on a decision, dated 6‑12‑19.83 made by the Full Bench of the Commission in Case No. 12(3) of 1983. Incidentally I happened to be a Member of this Full Bench. The relevant findings of the decision are quoted below:‑ In the first place the jurisdiction of a Court had to be expressly conferred by law and cannot be inferred by implication. The several functions of the Commission are expressly stated in section 22‑A(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and they do not include the function of interpretation of an award or decision. Moreover, if the submission of Mr. Ali Amjad is accepted, the interpretation of the decision of the Wage Commission by the Commission will itself be a decision, just as the interpretation by the Tribunal will be a decision under section 50(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The decision as to the interpretation given by the Commission may have the effect of varying or modifying the decision of the Wage Commission, which it is not competent to do under any of the sections 38‑A to 38‑I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which relate to Wage Commission. So much so that section 38‑C(3) provides that no dispute shall be raised in respect of any matter on which the decision of the Wage Commission is in operation. A dispute with regard to interpretation is nevertheless a dispute in respect of a matter covered by a decision of the Wage Commission.

5. It was next submitted on behalf of the Corporations that in para. 108 of the Award, the Wage Commission itself decided to constitute an Anamolies Committee. The relevant part of the said para. is reproduced below

108. Anamolies Committee.‑‑ The Commission has decided that in order to resolve the anamolies, if any, Anomalies Committee consisting of the following may be constituted: (1) Deputy Secretary M/o Commerce (Incharge of Insurance). Chairman (2) Secretary of the Corporation concerned or a representative of the management of the Corporation. Member (3) A representative of the Ministry of Finance. Member (4) A representative of the Ministry of Labour". Member It was, therefore, contended that for the interpretation of the Award there was only one authority and it was the Anamolies Committee. It was also brought to my notice that the Anamolies Committee before conveying its interpretation had given the parties an opportunity to present their views on the issue and that the Commission is not competent to set aside the interpretation given by the Committee. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the Corporation that on 16‑3‑1986, the Fourth Wage Commission for the Employees of the Corporation has been notified and it would be proper to refer the dispute to the said Wage Commission. In this regard reliance has been placed on a decision given by the High Court of Sind in Constitutional Petition No. 508 of 1981. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below: ‑ "Even otherwise, since the Third Wage Commission has been constituted which is seized of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction, even if it is to be held that simplicitor declaration of the matter in issue can be granted in a writ petition. However, it will be open to the petitioner to raise whatsoever pleas they wish to raise before the Third Wage Commission. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs." Without going into other legal issues and following the abovequoted decision of the Sind High Court, I refrain from deciding the applications and direct the applicants to raise whatsoever pleas they wish to raise before the Fourth Wage Commission constituted on 15‑3‑1986. MAHMOOD AKHTAR (MEMBER).‑‑I have had the benefit of going through the opinion proposed to be delivered by my learned brother Mr. S.Rais Ahmad Jafri, With deference to the learned Senior Member, I beg to differ with his views. I also respectfully differ with the findings of the Honourable Full Bench in case No. 12(3)/83. As to its finding that: In the first place the jurisdiction of a Court has to be expressly conferred by law and cannot be inferred by implication. The several functions of the Commission are expressly stated in section 22‑A(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and they do not include the function of interpretation of an award or decision .

2. I would respectfully submit that perhaps the attention of the Honourable Full Bench has not been drawn towards section 38‑D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called I.R.O., 1969) which specifically and expressly confers that jurisdiction. It provides that all the provisions of the I. R.O., 1969 applicable to an award of the Full Bench of the N. I. R. C. shall apply to the award of the Wage Commission with necessary modifications which include the powers to interpret for removal of doubt or difficulty under section 50 of the I.R.O., 1969. Section 38‑D reads as follows: ‑ "38‑D. Decision of Wage Commission to be deemed to be an award of the Commission:‑‑A decision of the Wage Commission published under section 38‑C shall be deemed to be an award of the Full Bench of the Commission and the provisions of this Ordinance applicable to such award including the provisions of sections 51 and 55 so far as may be and with the necessary modifications, shall apply to the decision of the Wage Commission."

3. Thus, section 38‑D (itaid) read with section 50 and section 22‑B(3) of the I. R.O. , 1969, expressly confers the necessary jurisdiction on this Commission to remove the doubts or difficulties and to that limited extent interpret the award of the Wage Commission.

4. As for the other part of the citation, which runs as follows:‑‑ Moreover, if the submission of Mr. Ali Amjad is accepted, the interpretation of the decision of the Wage Commission by the Commission will itself be a decision, just as the interpretation by the Tribunal will be a decision under section 50(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The decision as to the interpretation" given by the Commission may have the effect of varying or modifying the decision of the Wage Commission which it is not competent to do under any of the sections 38‑A to 38‑I of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which relate to Wage Commission. So much so that section 38‑C(3) provides that no dispute shall be raised in respect of any matter on which the decision of the Wage Commission is in operation. A dispute with regard to interpretation is nevertheless a dispute in respect of a matter covered by a decision of the Wage Commission.

5. I would respectfully submit that removal of doubts and difficulties from an award is not the same thing as varying or modifying the award. The process of removal of doubts or difficulties from an award, cannot obviously travel beyond the award and removal of doubts and difficulties is thus neither variation nor modification of the award. The Courts have been very particular that no variation or modification of an award is allowed. In the case of National and Grindlays Bank Employees Union v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1975 Kar. 754 the High Court of Karachi observed that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 50 was limited to interpreting an award or settlement in case of any difficulty. It was observed that the scope of section 50 is contra‑distinguishable to appellate jurisdiction under section 38(3) and a decision which is non appealable under section 37 does not become appealable by resort to Tribunals' jurisdiction under section

50. Similarly in this case also the Award, of the Wage Commission would B not become appealable or be subject to modification or variation if the interpretation by this Commission as sought under section 50.

6. I am thus of the view that the N.I.R.C. is vested with the jurisdiction to remove the doubts or difficulties and to that limited extent interpret an award of Wage Commission. Since this function is conferred by the I.R.O., 1969 upon the N.I.R.C. (or the Tribunal) the Honourable Full Bench of N. I. R. C. could neither confer this statutory C function and jurisdiction upon the Wage Commission nor the Wage Commission appropriate this function and jurisdiction which essentially falls under section 50 of the I.R.O. 1969 to itself and constitute Anamolies Committee. It is for this reason that I also differ respectfully with the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Sind in the case numbered as Constitutional Petition No. 508 of 1981 and relied upon by the learned Senior Member. M.Y.H./90/Lb Order accordingly.