1989 PLP 280 (PLC)

2. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, representative for the applicant union and Mr. Syed Zamirul Hassan, representative for the respondents.

3. The relevant portion of the concluding para of the agreement may be translated as under:‑ "If during the period of this settlement the Government enacts or promulgate any law in respect of the wages of the workers or their welfare then workers would be entitled to further rights and privileges under the Labour Laws." This agreement was valid upto 31‑10‑1987. Admittedly the Government increased the wages of workers by 13.5% from 1‑7‑1985 under the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985. According to the applicant doubt with regard to interpretation arose as to whether the said provision would be applicable to the workers of the respondent in view of the above clause of settlement in question.

4. Admittedly before filing, this application the applicant moved the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, under section 16 of the said Act for recovery of the above increase for the period from 1‑7‑1985 to 30‑9‑1985, by filing Application No. 71 of 1985. The learned Authority by its order, dated 24‑5‑1986 dismissed the claim of the applicants holding that the applicants were not entitled to claim in view of section 7 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). The proviso 'o this subsection provided that the Cost of Living Allowance shall not form part of wages of workers for the purpose of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The learned Authority was also of the view that the applicant were not entitled to this increase in Cost of Living Allowance in view of proviso to subsection (6) of section 3 of the said Act which provided that said increase and wages shall be set off against amount payable as relief due to rise in the cost of living under agreement or settlement reached or award given under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which has been announced and become effective on or after first day of January, 1984.

5. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Syed Zamirul‑Hassan, learned counsel for the respondents that as the applicants had not filed appeal against the said decision of the Authority, as provided under section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the decision has attained finality and this decision cannot be challenged by moving this application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In support he has relied upon the case of National and Grindlays Bank Employees Federation v. National and Grindlays Bank N L R 1983 Labour 37 decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the reported case also a settlement was arrived at between the union and the Bank allowing the higher rates in dearness and conveyance allowance from 29‑9‑1969. Subsequent to above agreement and in' pursuance of the decision of the Government of Pakistan the Bank had given further relief to its employees at various places. The Employees Federation finding the rates of allowance given to the bank employees in Karachi were more favourable than elsewhere applied under IRO. To the Labour Court at Lahore claiming that bank employees at places other than Karachi were also entitled to same rate and pay as given to the bank employees at Karachi. The Labour Court dismissed the application of the Federation. The Federation made an application under section 50 of I.R.O. for relief under the terms of settlement dated 29th September, 1967: The Tribunal directed the respondent bank to apply the terms of settlement to its employees at places other than Karachi as well. The said decision was challenged by a writ petition and the learned Judge of the High Court took view that the Federation having moved the Labour Court's order against it to become final under subsection (4) of section 37 which, therefore, cannot be called in question in any manner by or in any Court or any other authority. In appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the High Court on merits and also further held: "Section 50 will, on the principle of generalis speciallbus non deragant yield to the particular provision in section 37(4) which in the given circumstances confers finality on the decision of the Labour Court."

6. In the case of National and Grindlays Bank Employees Union v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1975 Kar. 754, a Division Bench at Karachi of High Court of Sind and Baluchistan observed that the decision which is not appealable under section 37 does not become appealable by resort to Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 50.

7. It is submitted that the applicant having moved the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of the amount allowed under Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1985 and having failed to get the relief from the learned, Authority and having allowed this decision to become final now cannot resort to challenging that order by way of invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 50 of the I.R.O. It is further submitted that presently the settlement which is to be interpreted has ceased to be in force and as such, such agreement cannot be interpreted.

8. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned counsel for the‑ applicant, however, contended that this application was filed in 1986 before the expiry of the settlement and further that doubt with regard to interpretation arose only when decision was given by the learned authority refusing the grant of cost of living allowance holding, that same could be set off under proviso to section 3(6) of the Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, against amount payable as relief due to rise in the cost of living under settlement dated 1‑11‑1984 reached between the parties.

9. The interpretation that is required to be given by this Tribunal is as to whether in view of the provision with regard to the set off under proviso to section 3(6) of the employees' Cost of Living Act, 1973 the increase of cost of living allowance under the Act could be payable under the agreement in question, in addition to the increase in allowances etc. under the said settlement. Admittedly there is decision of authority on this point which has been allowed to A be final the failure of the applicant to file appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. As was held in the above cited cases the decision by competent authority which has been allowed to become final does not become appealable by resort to Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 50 of I.R.O. .10. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, this application is not maintainable which is, accordingly dismissed. M.Z.S./1362/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.