1986 PLP 744 (PLC)

(5) Whether the application is time‑barred? (6) What should the order be? The applicant examined himself in support of his claim, while one Abdul Rehman, was tendered in evidence by the opponent. Both the learned counsel, filed the written arguments. I have perused the material on record and written arguments as well, and my findings on each of the issues are as under: ‑ Issue No.l: The applicant has produced a certificate Exh.A/3, issued by the Inspector of Factories, which shows that the opponent workshop is registered under the Factories Act. The certificate is conclusive proof of the fact and is to be relied upon as such. I would, therefore, answer this issue in affirmative. Issue No.2: The applicant has claimed the refixation of his wages. Hg has mentioned his wages in the claim‑sheet annexed with the application. According to this schedule the wages of the applicant averaged for the claim‑period are less than Rs.1,000 per month. Issue No.3: The learned Advocate for the opponent has contended that, since no specific order, promoting the applicant, has been issued by the competent Authority, therefore, he is not entitled for any wages from 1‑6‑1969. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted, that since a settlement was arrived at between the Federation and the opponent‑Organisation, before the learned NIRC, and it was agreed that the applicant will be considered to have been promoted from the retrospective date i.e. 1‑6‑1969, therefore, there remains no necessity to issue separate orders to the effect. He further contended that if opponent, does not care to issue any specific orders, it does not mean that the applicant should not claim the effect of the settlement for indefinite period. He further contended that the management is under obligation to issue orders, and give effect to the settlement. With regard to the objection of the opponent, that there are certain irregularities in the settlement, but the management witness admitted, in his cross‑examination, that learned NIRC was not moved and pointed out, such irregularities. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in case, the management does not consider it a promotion from retrospective effect what was the necessity of executing settlement to the effect. The opponent did not plead any specific purpose, for which the settlement was executed, if it was not for the purpose of promotion. The contents of the letter dated 17‑4‑1983 (Exh.A/1) written by the General Secretary, of the Federation to the applicant, shows, that he has particularly informed the applicant about his seniority and payment of the dues accrued to him, as a result of the settlement. The applicant on receipt of the aforesaid letter submitted an application dated 10‑5‑1983 (Exh.A/2) to the management, for implementation of the settlement but no reply whatsoever has been given by the management, which shows that the management did not care to contradict the request of the applicant. With regard to a case filed by the applicant in the learned Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, for claiming promotion as Foreman, but his grievance application was dismissed on 18‑8‑1981, being not maintainable, it is suffice to hold that the aforesaid order is earlier than that of settlement (Exh.A/4) which was executed on 3‑3‑1982 and has no bearing on the settlement. Moreover the applicant filed the grievance‑application for promotion as Foreman and not Mechanic Grade‑I. Even otherwise in the aforesaid order, it is nowhere held that he is debarred for promotion. I would, therefore hold that issuance of separate specific promotion order of the applicant in pursuance of the settlement is immaterial and of no effect on the claim of the applicant. Issue No.4: The opponent has filed a certificate (Exh.R/1) wherein the emoluments of the applicant as drawn by him for the month of September, 1983, are shown to be over Rs.1,000 p.m. In the very document his basic wages has been shown as Rs.824 p.m. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that for the purpose of jurisdiction, only the basic wages of the applicant are to be taken into consideration and for the entire claim period an average is to be worked out. In a case reported in 1971 P L D Quetta 47, it has been held by the Hon ble High Court Quetta that settlement effected under I D O, in respect of claim of wages by workers, can be enforced through an application under section 15 of the Act. In view of the above proposition, I hold that this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Issue No.5: The cause of action arose to the applicant upon receipt of letter dated 17‑4‑1983 (Exh.A/1) and on the basis of which he submitted the application on 10‑5‑1983 (Exh. A/2) to the opponent, but no reply whatsoever was given to him. He filed the instant application on 14‑9‑1983 in this Court and even from the date of execution of settlement (Exh.A/4) on 3‑3‑1982, the application has been filed within the prescribed period. I, therefore, hold that the application has been filed within time. Issue No.6: In view of the above discussion, I hold that the applicant having teen accepted as Mechanic Grade‑I from 1‑6‑1969 is entitled for the wages of the aforesaid post, which he has computed in the claim sheet and non‑payment of such wages amounted to illegal deductions. I, therefore, allow the application and direct the opponent to refund an amount of Rs.22,524 and also award one time compensation thereon, is equal to the amount of illegal deduction of the wages. In all I award Rs.45,048 (Rupees forty‑five thousand, forty‑eight only), and direct the opponent to deposit the same in this Court within 30 days hereinafter. A.A. Application allowed.