2016 PLP 39 (PLC)

ASAD MUNIR, MEMBER.

The short question involved in this case is whether the claim for unpaid wages can be made through a petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Admittedly, the Respondent's services stood terminated upon his resignation from service on 28.10.2000. After the termination of his services, the Respondent filed before the Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozwala, a petition under section 25-A of IRO for recovery of dues on account of gratuity, bonus, compensation for un-availed leave et cetera. However, the Petitioner Company through its application under section 35 of the IRO, 1969, sought the dismissal of the grievance petition on the ground that the learned Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the grievance petition. By its order dated 04.01.2001, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the Petitioner Company's application after holding that it has jurisdiction in the matter in view of the law laid down in Pak Arab Refinery Limited v. Muhammad Rashid (1999 SCMR 373) and Zain Packages Industries Limited, Karachi, v. Abdul Rashid etc. (1994 SCMR 22).

2. Assailing the legality of the learned Labour Court's order dated 04.01.2001, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Company has argued that the learned Labour Court has not only wrongly concluded that it has no jurisdiction but has also misconstrued and misapplied the law laid down in the cited judgments. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner Company are unchallenged as none has appeared on behalf of the Respondent who was proceeded against ex parte by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.04.2014 after notice by way of proclamation was published in daily Jang on 09.04.2014.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner Company, I agree with him that the learned Labour Court has not been able to appreciate the law laid down in Zain Packages Industries Limited, Karachi v. Abdul Rashid etc., supra, where a workman's claim for gratuity, filed before the Payment of Wages Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was upheld. The said authority does not lay down that the claim for gratuity could be filed before the Labour Court. The judgment in Pak Arab Refinery Limited v. Muhammad Rashid, supra, is also of no help to the Respondent as it involved the issue of termination of services rather than a claim for payment of dues including gratuity, bonus et cetera. Under section 25-A of the IRO 1969, a workman can maintain a petition where he is still in service or where his services have been terminated in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute. The Respondent could not maintain his petition under section 25-A of the IRO, 1969 as neither was he in service when he filed the grievance petition nor his services were terminated in connection with or as a result of an industrial dispute. This view is supported by the cases reported as Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem (1994 SCMR 2213) and Messrs Wah Industries Limited, WAH Cantt. District Rawalpindi v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others (1998 PLC 1), wherein it was laid down that an employee, terminated otherwise than in connection with or as a result of an industrial dispute, is not a workman cannot maintain a petition under section 25-A of the IRO,1969. The Respondent's grievance petition was also not competent under the provisions of Standing Order 12 (3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which can be invoked only where the services of a workman are illegally terminated and not when he makes a claim for the recovery of dues after he ceases to be in service. Reference may be made to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, section 15 read with section 22 whereof confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Payment of Wages Authority, to adjudicate upon a claim for wages. In view thereof, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the Respondent's claim for recovery of wages including gratuity, bonus, compensation for un-availed leave et cetera.

4. For what has been stated above, this revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside with the result that the Respondent's grievance petition stands dismissed. HBT/2/PLT Revision allowed.