1976 PLP 18 (PLC)

This is a petition under section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the interpretation of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the award dated 21‑2‑1975 of National Industrial Relations Commission.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition are that after the above award was given by the National Industrial Relations Commission; an application was presented before the learned Chairman of National Industrial Relations Commission for the clarification of paragraph 17 of the award. The learned Chairman while clarifying the said paragraph, reviewed his previous order by amending the award vide order dated 22‑2‑1975. Thereafter the Lyallpur Cotton Mills, Lyallpur went up in appeal before the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission alleging that the Chairman had no jurisdiction to review his previous order and amend the award. The Full Bench of the Commission vide their order dated 25‑3‑1975 held that the second order passed by the Chairman of the Com mission was without jurisdiction and as such it was set aside. With the above modification the appeal was dismissed. The Management also went up in writ petition against the award which is still pending in the High Court. On 4‑4‑1975 the Management offered 3 months' wages as bonus to each worker on pro rata basis meaning thereby that each worker was offered a bonus proportionate to the actual period of his employment in a year calculated on the basis of wages earned by him as on 30‑9‑1974. This offer, however was turned down by the workers Stag Union of the mills on the ground that the award contemplated a sum equal to 3 times multiple of wages of the workers as they stood on 30‑9‑1974. The above interpretation of the workers was rejected by the Management. Thereafter the workers Staff Union took the matter before Punjab Labour Court No. 3 which passed an interim order on 11‑4‑1975 directing the Management to make payment as demanded by the Union, subject of course to the final deduction if the award was subsequently interpreted to mean a payment on pra rata basis by a competent authority. In this connection a sort of surety bond was got executed from each worker. Subsequently the Labour Court on 2‑5‑1975 dismissed the application of the union hold ing that the matter was exclusively in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but no order was passed to enforce the recovery of excess amount paid by the Management. In view of the above the present petition was filed by the Management.

3. The first point for determination is as to whether this petition is competent. In this connection it will be proper to reproduce section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which reads as follows: ‑ (1) If any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provisions of an award or settlement, it shall be referred to the Tribunal constituted under this Ordinance. (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From the above it is clear that the Tribunal has no interpret an award or settlement if the matter is referred to it. Now the point which arises is as to whether the award given by the National Industrial Relations Commission can be interpreted by the Tribunal. The definition of award as given in section 2 (ii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 reads as follows: Award means determination by Labour Court, Arbitrator or appellate Tribunal of dispute an any matter relating thereto and includes an interim award.

4. If the intention of the Legislature was that the Tribunal should also interpret an award given by the National Industrial Relations Com mission, then National Industrial Relations Commission would also have been mentioned in the definition. It may be pointed out that after the Appellate Tribunal was constituted, the words, Appellate Tribunal were added in the definition of award. In the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the definition of the award was as follows: ‑ Award means interim or final determination by an Industrial Tribunal of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto.

5. In tire Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1959 the Award was defined in section 2 (b) of the Ordinance as under:‑ Award means the determination by any Industrial Court of any industrial dispute, or any matter relating thereto and includes interim award.

6. In the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1968 the award was defined in section 2 (a) of the said Ordinance as under: ‑ Award means determination by an Industrial Court of any industrial dispute or any matter relating thereto, or any matter referred to it under clause (b) of the subsection (t) of section 11, and includes an interim award.

7. In spite of the fact that appellate Tribunal has been constituted under section 17 of the said Ordinance, the definition of the award had not been changed. It was only when the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 969 came into force, the words, Appellate Tribunal were also added in the definition of award as given in section 2 (ii) of the said Ordinance.

8. Thus it is clear that the Legislature did not intend the Appellate Tribunal to interpret an award given by the National Industrial Relations Commission, otherwise necessary amendment would have been made in section 2 (ii) of the Ordinance.

9. In view of the above I hold that the instant petition is incompetent and is, accordingly, dismissed as such.