1996 PLP 211 (PLC)
LANDHI AREA, KARACHI Versus Messrs DILON LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1996 PLP 211 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | LANDHI AREA, KARACHI Versus Messrs DILON LIMITED, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 211 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 211 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 211 (PLC) (LANDHI AREA, KARACHI Versus Messrs DILON LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmed for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 38(3) & 50
Jurisdiction of Tribunal-- Labour Union in employer establishment had filed application under S. 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Labour Appellate Tribunal to decide question that benefits granted to employees under settlement arrived at between employers and Labour Union were in respect of increases granted to workers for their efficiency and good conduct and had nothing to do with any cost of Living Allowance or other benefits they were already drawing
Provisions of S. 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 did not invest Labour Appellate Tribunal with jurisdiction by way of appeal to grant due benefits to the workers as claimed by Labour Union as jurisdiction under that S. 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not analogous to appellate jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal under S. 38(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969-- Labour Appellate Tribunal could only act when any difficulty or doubt would arise as to interpretation of any award or settlement and under rules of interpretation same was to be made according to language used and not according to the intention attributed to the makers of that settlement
When language of settlement was plain, Tribunal could not go back and search for the real intention of the parties. Abdul Majeed, Representative for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
This application was filed before this Tribunal under section 50, I.R.O. on 20‑10‑1985 by Mr. Abdul Majeed, Representative for the. Union on behalf of Dilon Ltd. Labour Union, Landhi against their employers Dilon Ltd., Landhi. In this application it was contended that the benefits granted under the settlement, dated 31st January, 1984 were in respect of increases granted to the workers for their efficiency and good conduct and had nothing to do with any Cost of Living Allowance or other benefits they were already, drawing. That the Tribunal may decide this question of payment as being over and above the Cost of Living Allowance and other allowances admissible to the parties.
2. Section 50 of the. I.R.O. does not invest the Tribunal with jurisdiction by way of appeal to grant due benefits to the workers as claimed by them. This jurisdiction under section 50 is not analogous to the appellate jurisdiction under section 38(3). Here the Tribunal can only act when any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any award or settlement. Under the Rules of Interpretation the same is to be made according to the language used and not according to the intention attributed to the makers of this settlement. When the language is plain we cannot go back and search for the real intention of the parties.
3. In this case there are six terms of settlement followed by other necessary conditions:‑‑ (i) It relates to flat increase in the basic wages of Rs.30 per month effective from 1st December, 1983. This is plain Kings's English and requires no further simplification. The increase of the basic wages by Rs.30 per month: (ii) After the basic wages there is an increase in allowances. This has been increased from Rs.65 per month to Rs.100 per month with effect from December 1, 1983. So the total allowances will amount to Rs.100 per month. (iii) The Chemical Allowance has been increased from Rs.80 per month to Rs.120 per month with effect from same date. (iv) Conveyance allowance has been increased from Rs.70 per month to 80 per month with effect from same date. (v) House Rent Allowance has been increased from Rs.42 per month to Rs.62 per month from the same date. (vi) Instead of cloth a sum of Rs.358 would be granted each year in the 1st week of Ramzan as Eid gift.
4. The further explanation makes it very clear that the benefits stated above will not be in addition to any benefits already announced or granted by any law. This settlement was to remain in force from' 1st December, 1983 to 30th November, 1985. The benefits were to be effective from December 1, 1983.
5. This is the clear worded agreement which does not admit any other interpretation or ambiguity to be clarified. It is the most clearly worded settlement and if the Workers' Union desires still better terms, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction 'to consider their request. The application is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./2526/Lb.S Order accordingly.