1992 PLP 1000 (PLC)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.

Respondent No.l is a union of the employees serving in the petitioner-company. On 27-7-1985 Act XIV of 1985 came into force which amended the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, by adding a new provision as subsection (6) in section

3. Under the new subsection a certain category of employees became entitled to an increase of 13.5 per cent. if its wages. The petitioner declined to give the benefit of the increase to the members of respondent No.l. Upon this respondent No.l moved a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court, Gujranwala. By its order, dated 12-9-1988 the learned Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to give to the employees the benefit of increase as envisaged in the new subsection. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. It was accepted and the order of the Labour Court was set aside. Respondent No.1 moved the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the learned Tribunal. Its petition was allowed and the order of the Labour Court was restored. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. The new subsection reads as follows:

"In addition to the cost of living allowance admissible under subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), or, as the case may be subsection (5), if any, every employee whose wages do not exceed one thousand five hundred rupees shall, in respect of his employment on or after the first day of July, 1985, whether on time-work or piece-work basis, be paid by his employer an increase in wages at the rate of 13.5 per cent. of his wages,: Provided that the said increase in wages shall be set off-- (a) against the amount payable as a relief due to rise in the cost of living under an agreement or settlement reached, or an award given, under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), which has been announced and become effective on or after the first day of Janu4ry, 1984; and (b) against the amount payable under an agreement or settlement reached and in force on the first day of July, 1985, under which employees get increases at regular intervals on the basis of a rise in the cost of living: Provided further that the provisions of section 7 shall not apply to the increase of wages payable under this subsection:" It appears that there were some disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.l which ended in an agreement between the parties. The agreement words drawn up on 27-4-1985. Under the terms thereof the petitioner had agreed too bring at par the pay scales of the members of respondent No.l with those enjoyed by its employees who were serving in another of its establishments. The case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal and the High Court was that the agreement, dated 27-4-1985 was covered by proviso (a), ibid; consequently, it vas entitled to set off the increase in wages as allowed by the new subsection against such of the higher pay that the members of respondent No.l became entitled to receive as a result of the revision of their pay scales. The learned Tribunal accepted this contention of the petitioner whereas the High Court rejected it. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we acre inclined to agree with the High Court. It is to be noticed that proviso (a) is attracted to cases where relief has already been granted to the employees on account of rise in the cost of living. Now, under the said agreement, the pay scales of the members of respondent No.l were revised not with the object of giving them relief against rise in the cost of living but with a view, to place them in the same position as was enjoyed by the petitioner's employees in another undertaking. Thus the proviso was not in terms applicable here. The petition is dismissed. AA./P-179/S Petition dismissed.