1988 PLP 987 (PLC(CS))

S.M. Yaqoob for Applicant. Shafique Qureshi for Respondent: Date of hearing: 18th February, 1988. This is a suo moto revision application against an impugned order, dated 13-7-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, who had allowed the application of the respondent under section 51 of the I.R.O. 1969, directs the applicant management to make the payments of anomalies to the respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to have been permanently employed in the applicant establishment on 15-2-1977 as a Press Sheer Operator, involving the technical skill, on the cutting of the Iron Press, comparatively a job heavier than the job of up-poster, which was lighter, in nature and that the applicant establishment used to treat both these jobs in Grade I at the pay scale of 250/15-490 in pay Group IV. Further, it was the claim of the respondent that on 5-1-1977, 1-1-1982 and 9-1-1984 respectively and that prior to these settlements, there was also a settlement of 1976 for grades scales and the terms of the employments in the applicant establishment, so, when he had realized that he was not being paid it accordance with the new Paw Scale and Grade, therefore, he had protested, thus, in the settlement of 1984, this question was agreed upon that individual case of anomaly be considered on merits on case to case basis and even he was not placed in Grade 1, and was considered in smaller Grade No. 2. It was further claimed that consequently due to the no placement in Grades I and VI, he had suffered the loss of wages, allowance, scale and Grade No. 2. The respondent further claimed that his appointment did not mention the grade though his work was of heavy in nature than Upholster, that there was favouritism and that due to the failure of the establishment to treat him in Grade-I and treating the job with pay scale of Grade 4, apparently treating as Grade 1, he had suffered loss, thus, due to these injustice and discrimination, he was entitled to get Rs.1,76,298, but, he was paid only Rs.1,40,839, hence, the claim of the amount of difference vide, his application under section 51, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court for recovery of the same. 3. The applicant establishment resisted the application under section 51, I.R.O. 1969 of the respondent, mainly on two grounds, namely, that as there was no anomaly in the case of the respondent and that his application under section 51, I.R.O. 1969, was not legally maintainable, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present suo moto revision application under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O. 1969. 5. I have heared Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate for the applicant establishment and Mr. Shafique Qureshi, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties. At the very outset, I would hold that in view of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case as well admitted position by both the parties, as had been rightly; discussed in the well reasoned impugned order, I find nothing illegal or irregular to interfere with the impugned order, so, I would maintain the same. However, it was argued by Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate for the applicant establishment that the present application of the respondent claiming the benefits from 15-2-1977 through an application under section 51, 1.R.0. 1969, filed on 1-7-1986 before the learned Labour Court was hopelessly time-barred and it would seriously affect a number of other pending cases. Reliance was placed on a number of cases, reported as 1982 S C M R 912, 1975 P L C 613; 1983 P L C 1196; and 1985 P L C 351, therefore, to avoid this inordinate delay the respondent had very cleverly approached the learned Labour Court under section 51, I.R.O. 1969. I see no force in these arguments of Mr. S.M. Yaqoob. All the authorities relied upon by him are quite distinguishable and not applicable to the present application of the respondent as these authorities are related to the cases under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, and not under section 51, I.R.O. 1969. Admitted facts in the present case are that admitting the right or entitlement of the respondent for payment of arrears of certain benefits, the applicant management did not make full payments, therefore, the respondent had rightly filed his application under section 51, I.R.O. 1969, for recovery of the difference of payments, hence, the restrictions and bindings of the provisions of section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, etc., could not be made applicable to the nature of the present application of the respondent. It is a fact that the respondent was not paid the full amount of arrears therefore the cause of action was continuing and so it would not be proper to say that it was barred by time and the learned Labour Court was competent to pass the impugned order under section 51 of I.R.O. 1969 as the respondent was correct in claiming the recovery of the arrears of his lawful dues. It is also a case of the respondent that the present application under section 38(3-a) I.R.O. 1969 had been submitted by the applicant management before this Tribunal after expiry of reasonable time. It is also a fact from the record that in a number of cases in Pakistan Steel, there is a discrimination and liking and disliking which had adversely affected the discipline, functioning and production of a huge industrial project of the country and for this the responsible officers of the applicant management are directly involved. Law is equally applicable to each and every employee of the management and there should not be discrimination and liking or disliking. If the liability was outstanding against an? employer, a worker was not paid the legal dues, then the worker was entitled to make an application before either the Authority or before the learned Labour Court fort the determination of the amount. Mr: Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate x the respondent has very correctly relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court, reported in 1985 S C M R 1885 at page 1886. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the respondent has also placed his reliance on a use reported in 1974 P L C 194. In view of the facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of the case, I find nothing wrong, illegal or irregular in the impugned order to interfere with by this Tribunal. 6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss the present application under section 38(3-a), I.R.O: 1969. The result would be that the respondent would be entitled to get the claim of the amount of difference. Thus, an amount of Rs.35,459 as has been deposited by the applicant management in this Tribunal as a difference of the arrears, be immediately paid to the respondent Zahid Hussain S/o Chragh-ud-Din, forth?with after due verification. A.E./1272/Lb.S. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.