1990 PLP 343 (PLC)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑The petitioners in the above noted three petitions have challenged the order of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, at Karachi, dated 3‑2‑1988, passed under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (I.R.O.) 1969, on the application of Karachi Stevedores Conference (respondent No. 1 in Petitions Nos. 864 and 882 of 1988 and respondent No. 2 in Petition No. 1041 of 1988). We, therefore, propose to dispose of the above three petitions by a consolidated order as the impugned order and the points of law are common in these cases. The background of the controversy in the above cases may be stated as follows:‑‑ On 2nd February, 1987, Karachi Harbour & Dock Workers Union, submitted a charter of their demands to Karachi Dock Labour Board, likewise Karachi Stevedors Conference Ltd., which is a representative body of Stevedoring firms, also raised some demands which it submitted to Karachi Dock Labour Board. For the sake of convenience we will hereinafter refer the Karachi Dock Labour Board, Karachi Harbour and Dock Workers Union, and Karachi Stevedors Conference Ltd., as `the Board', `the Union', and `the Conference' respectively. On 10‑2‑1987 `the Board' constituted a negotiating team consisting of its five members to enter into a dialogue with `the Union' to reach a settlement on the Charter of demands submitted by `the Union'. On 9‑4‑1987 a settlement was reached between the negotiating team of `the Board' and `the Union' and accordingly a memorandum of settlement was signed between the representatives of `the Union' and `the Board' which was effective for a period of two years from the date of settlement. Clause 36 of Settlement dated 9‑4‑1987 which related to payment of 4‑1/2 % indexation pay merged in the wages of Dock Labours, provided that the increase in wages on account of indexation was payable from 1‑7‑1986. However, members of `the Conference' made payments to the Dock Workers the increased wages on account of indexation pay only from 10‑4‑1987. This led to a further dispute between `the Union' and `the Conference' and accordingly the matter came up for consideration in the meeting of `the Board' on 24‑11‑1987 where it was decided that as an interim measure the arrears of indexation wages for the period from 1‑7‑1986 to 9‑4‑1987 will be paid by `the Board' to the Dock Workers and in order to determine the liability for payment of this amount, the matter will be referred to Sindh Appellate Labour Tribunal for opinion and in the light of the verdict of Tribunal, the amount which `the Board' may have paid to the workers of `the Union' will be reimbursed. In accordance with the above decision of `the Board', `the conference' filed an application before Sindh Appellate Labour Tribunal at Karachi under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, impleading only `the Board', and `the Union' as the respondents. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the parties reached the conclusion that settlement dated 9‑4‑1987 was signed by `the Board' with `the Union' in its capacity as an employer and as such it was solely responsible for giving effect to clause 36 of the settlement. Accordingly, `the Board' was directed to pay the workers of the Union the amount of indexation pay for the period from 1‑7‑1986 to 9‑4‑1987. With regard to the liability of `the Conference' for payment o: arrears of wages on account of increase due to 4‑1/2% Indexation pay, the learned Tribunal though held that `the Conference' was not liable for implementation of clause 36 of the settlement, but it was directed to contribute towards the same as a beneficiary of `the Board' in the agreed proportion alongwith other beneficiaries of `the Board'. The above interpretation by the learned Tribunal of clause 36 of the settlement dated 9‑4‑1987 is challenged by the Board', Karachi Port Trust and the Foreign Shipping Lines in the above petitions. Mr. SA. Sarwana, the learned counsel for the Board contended before us that `the Board' is a Statutory Authority created for purposes of regulating and controlling the employment of Dock Workers and as such by holding it as the `employer' of Dock Workers, the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal committed a grave error of law. It is also contended by Mr. Sarwana that Reference Application under section 50 of I.R.O. filed by `the Conference' before Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal was misconceived and therefore, it should have been dismissed as such. The learned counsel for K.P.T. and Foreign Shipping Lines in addition to above submissions of the counsel for `the Board' jointly contended that neither the K.P.T. nor the Foreign Shipping Lines were made parties to the application under section 50 of the I.R.O. filed by the Conference and as such the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal holding them liable for contribution towards the arrears of wages on account of 4‑1/2% increase of indexation pay, as a beneficiary of `the Board' in the agreed proportion amounting to condemning them without hearing. It is also contended by the learned counsel jointly that K.P.T. and Foreign Shipping Lines, not being the `employer' of Dock Workers, could not be held liable for payment of arrears of indexation pay, which was the sole responsibility of `the Conference' as `the employer'. It is not disputed before us that as a result of the impugned order, both K.P.T. and Foreign Shipping Lines as beneficiaries of `the Board' are now required to contribute their respective shares in the amount of arrears payable to Dock Workers calculated @ 4‑1/2% Indexation pay for the period from 1‑7‑1986 to 9‑4‑1987 in accordance with clause 36 of the Settlement dated 9‑4‑1987. It is also admitted before us that 'neither the K.P.T. nor the Foreign Shipping Lines were made parties in the application filed under section 50 of the I.R.O. by `the Conference', nor they were heard before the decision of the said application. It is, therefore, quite clear that the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal holding all the beneficiaries of `the Board' liable to contribution towards the arrears payable to Dock Workers for the period from 1‑7‑1986 to 9‑4‑1987 on account of 4‑1/2% Indexation increase, without hearing them, is wholly without jurisdiction. We accordingly, declare the impugned order as having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The application under section 50 of I.R.O. filed by the Conference will be re‑heard by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal after notice to all the beneficiaries of the Board who are likely to be affected by the decision of the application, and decided in accordance with the law. There will be no order as to the costs. M.Y.H./K‑185/K Case remanded.