1991 PLP 138 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J: ‑‑By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions, whereby leave to appeal is sought against a common judgment dated 18‑12‑1988, passed in Writ Petition No. 30 of 1985 (filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the above first petition) and followed in Writ Petition No. 31 of 1985 filed by the petitioner in the above second petition against the respondent.

2. The brief facts are that both the above petitioners were working in T.I.P. Haripur (Hazara) factory belonging to the respondent in the Rack Assembly Shop No. 336 as piece rated workers. They were transferred to Shop No. 335 with effect from 12‑3‑1978 on account of shortage of work in the former shop in their own interest. It appears that after the above transfer the petitioners were paid their wages as per Shop No. 335 instead of paying the same as per Shop No. 336 which were more than what were payable in Shop No.

335. The petitioners agitated the above question before the respondent, when they did not get any redress they filed cases before the Labour Court which allowed the petitioners' claim by holding that the petitioners were entitled to the wages as per Shop No.336 in terms of the settlement dated 12‑9‑1977 entered into between the respondent and the Collective Bargaining Agent, hereinafter referred to as the `first settlement'. The petitioners were paid accordingly upto 10‑4‑1980 when a fresh settlement was entered into between the respondent and the Collective Bargaining Agent, hereinafter referred to as the `second settlement'. However, the petitioners insisted that they should be paid their wages as per the `first settlement'. When the petitioners were refused, they filed applications under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for claiming a sum of Rs.25,462/25, being the amount of arrears of the alleged difference, which applications were allowed to the extent of Rs. 10,388/‑ each. Against above orders the respondent filed appeals which were dismissed. Thereupon, the respondent filed the above two petitions which were allowed in terms of the impugned judgment dated 18‑12‑1988 passed in Writ Petition No. 30 of 1985 and followed in Writ Petition No. 31 of 1985. The petitioners have, therefore filed the above petitions for leave.

3. In support of the above petitions Mian Inamul Haq, learned A.S.C. appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the High Coast was not justified in remanding the case to consider inter alia the `second settlement' which could not have nullified the `first settlement' for the purpose of payment of wages to the petitioners as per judgment of the Labour Court. In our view the above contention seems to be devoid of any force. A settlement between an employer and the C.BA. remains operative for the period mentioned in the settlement or in the absence of any agreed period, for the period provided under the relevant law. In the instant case, it has not been denied that the respondent and the C.BA. had entered into a `second settlement' with effect from 10‑4‑1980 and, therefore, the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Appellant Tribunal should have taken into consideration the effect of the above `second settlement' on the petitioners' claim. Then it was contended by Mian Inamaul Haq, learned A.S.C. for the petitioners, that even the `second settlement' ceased to operate with effect from April, 1982. If this is so, it would be open to the parties to rely upon the same. The petitions have, therefore, no merits. Leave is accordingly refused with the above observations. AA./I‑116/S Leave refused.