1990PLC108 (PLP)

2. In their joint application u/ss 15 & 16 of the Payment of Wages Act the Appellants have prayed for recovery of Cost of Living Allowance from 1‑7‑1987 to 31‑12‑1987 at the rate of 13.5%n and from 1‑7‑1986 to 31‑12‑1987 at the rate, of 4.5%, alleged to have been withheld by the Respondent Establishment.

3. The claim of Appellants was resisted by t e Respondent on the ground that the application is not maintainable and no cause of action had accrued to the Appellants. It was however not specifically pleaded by the Respondent that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the Appellants. The Court framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the application is not maintainable. . (2) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the case. (3) Whether the applicants are not entitled to relief claimed due to terms of settlement. (4) What should the order be?

4. The parties led the evidence on all the issues but learned Authority decided only the issue No. 2 against the Appellants holding that it had no jurisdiction, which has given rise to the above appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan for the Appellants and Mr. Wazarat Hussain for the Respondent and have gone through the relevant record including the impugned order.

6. It was contended by Mr. Bashir Awan that since the Authority had recorded evidence on all the issues it should not have decided the issue No. 2 alone but should have decided all the issues. He further submitted that according to section 6(b) of the Employees Cost of Living Relief Act, 1973 the learned Authority is specifically conferred the powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute of claim arising under the aforesaid Act and as such the Authority has wrongly come to the conclusion, by misconceiving the legal position, that it has no jurisdiction to try the matter. While relying upon the authority reported in 1989 Law Notes at page 253 he submitted that the matter be remanded to the trial Court for recording its findings on all the issues as it will not prejudice the case of Respondent in any way.

7. It was contended by Mr. Wazarat Hussain that the claim of the Appellants can be determined after interpretation of settlement between C.B.A. and the Management which is absolute function of the Appellate Tribunal as per section 50 of IRO and the Authority reported in 1982 P L C at page 655.

8. In the reply to above Mr. Bashir Awan contended that the claim of the Appellants is not dependent upon the interpretation of settlement but it arises out of Employees Cost of Living Relief Act 1973 which decision is within the jurisdiction of the Authority.

9. The perusal of the reply statement shows that plea of interpretation of settlement between the C B A and the Management was not taken. It has also not been specifically stated in the reply statement that the claim of the Appellants was dependent on the interpretation of settlement. However the learned trial Court not only framed such issue as at No. 2 but without treating it as preliminary and deciding it as such allowed the parties to lead their evidence whereafter it decided only the issue No. 2 although it should have decided all the issues by the same order.

10. It is correct that the interpretation of the settlement is the absolute function of the Appellate Tribunal but it does not mean that even the genuine claim of the employees should be denied under that garb. It was however for the trial Court to have specifically come to the conclusion that the claim of the Appellants is dependent on the interpretation of the settlement and does not arise out of the Employees Cost of Living Relief Act which, was in fact is not even the plea of the Respondent raised in its reply statement.

11. Relying upon Authority reported in 1989 Law Notes at page 253 and in view of the aforesaid discussion I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the trial Court with the direction to give findings on all the issues on the basis of evidence recorded earlier. H.B/1501/Lb. S Order accordingly