Find a Lawyer

Reference No. KAR.‑137 of 1969,'heard on 9th‑May 1969

---S; 35 read with West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance (IV of 1968), S. 42 read with S. 46(2)‑Interpretation of settlement‑Application filed before Industrial Court during lifetime of Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 but lying pending till promulgation of West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968‑Industrial Court retains no jurisdiction to interpret such settlement‑Jurisdiction of interpretation of such settlement vests in Tribunal under S. 42, lest Pakistan Industrial Disputes , Ordinance, 1968.

---S. 13(1)(d) and West Pakistan Industrial Uispute3 Ordinance (IV of 1968), S. 18(l)(d)‑Advantage of settlement available to employees in employment at time of settlement and also to those employed subsequently.

--‑Settlement‑Clause reciting that it was applicable to "any person employed. by etc. etc."‑Rules of Company classifying apprentices also as "employees"‑‑Settlement in circumstances, held, also applicable to apprentices.

Nemo for Appellants.

Ghulam Hassan M. Paryani for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th May 1969.

This is an application under section 35 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), for interpretation of certain term of the settlement arrived at on 21st December 1964, between the K.E.S.C. Labour Union 'and the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited; Karachi. The application was made on 29‑9‑66. In the mean time, Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, was repealed on 8th March 1968. The learned Chairman of the Ist West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, made a reference on 18th February 1969, that the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, having been repealed, the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to interpret) the settlement arrived at between the parties. Under section 46(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, it is 4 said that "notwithstanding the repeal of the said Ordinance applications to Courts made under the repealed Ordinance shah be continued and be deemed to be under this Ordinance". It follows, therefore, that it ii the Tribunal which has jurisdiction under section 42 of the present Ordinance to interpret the settlement arrived at between the parties. I accept the reference.

2. No one appears today for the Labour Union. Mr. Ghulam Hassan M. Paryani, Advocate for the Corporation is present. The term of the settlement dated 21st December 1964, which requires interpretation runs as under :‑

"An increase of Rs. 21.00 would be allowed on the total consolidated pay as on 30th September 1964, if any employee already has had an increase in his pay of more than Rs. 21.00 pay."

3. It seems that there was some difference of opinion between the workmen and the Corporation in respect of the interpretation of the above term of settlement the difference between the parties appears to be, as would appear from the application dated 29th September 1966, on two matters. In the first place according to the: Corporation the settlement applied only to those Who were in employment on the date of the settlement. In the second place, according to the Corpora tion, the benefit of the settlement could not be taken by the apprentices.

4. I have heard Mr. Paryani, the learned Advocate for the Corporation. The learned Advocate candidly conceded in view of the clear provision of section 18(1)(d) of the present Ordinance, which is equivalent to section 13(I)(d) of the repeated Ordinance,) that the advantage of the settlement would extend to all the), workmen, who were in the employment of the Corporation on the date when the settlement was arrived at and also to those persons who may be subsequently employed by the Corporation. The only point on which the learned Advocate contested was that the advantage could .not be extended to persons, who were not permanent employees of the Corporation. In other words, apprentices employed by the Corporation could not claim the advantage of the settlement, reproduced above. I have given my careful consideration to the contention of the learned Advocate for the Corporation. The settlement already reproduced is general enough to include all types of employees, permanent, temporary and also apprentices. The apprentices are also the employees of the Corporation. I am supported in my conclusion by the rules framed by the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited, which is Annexure Y of the record before me. These are Service Rules for the employees of the K.E.S.C. Ltd. An employee therein has been defined as "any person employed by the Corporation in the office, Power Station, Distributional Department or Commercial Department, whose name is included, in the Muster Roll". Employees are classified under the following heads:‑

(1) Permanent Staff.

(2) Probationer.

(3) Work Charged Establishment Staff.

(4) Apprentices.

5. In view of the rules and the word 'employee' used in the settlement under interpretation, I would hold that apprentices are also entitled to the advantages of the settlement.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.