Find a Lawyer

--------S. 34-Petition to Court-Prayer-Point stated in petition-Not repeated in specific prayers-No material defect so as to disentitle petitioner of such prayer.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-

--------S. 4 & Schedule ----Wages for period of illegal lock-out --- Not guaranteed under Ordinance-Matter within entire discretion of Court-Workers and employer arriving at an agreement for such wages-Such agreement, held, binding upon parties.

Baha-ud-din for Appellant.

This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated the 24th of January 1973, whereby the learned Presiding Officer held that the lock-out from 8th December 1970 was illegal. The learned Labour Court, however, did not grant the payment of dues that the workers were entitled, if the lock-out was illegal. The learned Labour Court observed that in the absence of any specific prayer as to the payment of any dues, it could not grant the same.

2. Mr. Baha-ud-din, the learned Representative for the Union, contended that the Union had in paragraph 7 of the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), prayed that the workers were entitled to wages and other benefits from 8th December 1970. The mere fact that the prayer did not repeat what is stated in paragraph 7 of the petition, would not disentitle the workers of Union A from claiming its dues. There is much force in this contention and I would now proceed to examine if the workers of the Union are entitled to any dues.

3. Mr. Baha-ud-din claimed the dues on three counts. He claimed salary for a period of two months from 8th December 1170 during which illegal lock-out continued. In the second place, Mr. Baha-ud-din claimed t onus. In the third place, payment of Workers' Participation Fund. So far as bonus and payment of Workers' Participation Fund are concerned, it vas subject-matter of a settlement between Mr. Amir Khan, the General Secretary of the National Spinning Mills Employees' Union, who made the application under section 34 of the Ordinance giving rise to the impugned order and Gul Nabi President of the Union, on the one hand and Muhammad Abdul Karim, representing the Employers. Under that, agreement the Management agreed to have their accounts audited, and thereafter make payment for Workers' Participation Fund and also bonus, if there was any profit. The workers of the Union, therefore, are entitled to receive bonus as well as payment under Workers' Participation Fund under the term of the settlement dated 20th June 1972.

4. The only point for consideration is as to whether the workers of the Union are entitled to wages for a period of two months during which, according to them, there was illegal lock-out. In this connection, reference may be made to another agreement dated 22-3-1971, between Amir Khan and Gul Nabi on behalf of the Workers and Nasir Ahmad, representing the Employers. Under this agreement one month's pay in lieu of notice of termination of service was to be paid to the workers and gratuity at the rate of 15 days' salary of each year and 10 days' salary as ex gratia payment as a gesture of goodwill was also to be paid to the workers. The last para graph of this agreement reads as under :

"The statement hereunder gives detailed account of as to amounts payable to the workers showing how the balance payable is arrived at and that is accepted by the workers as correct and are agreed to receive it in full and final satisfaction of all claims. The payment will be made as per attached statement by 6th April 1971."

5. Mr. Baha-ud-din, the learned Representative for the Union, however, contended that this agreement being in violation of section 4 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance), was not binding on the Union, section 4 of the Standing Orders Ordinance states

"The Standing Orders may be modified by means of a collective agreement and not otherwise :

Provided that no such agreement shall have the effect of taking away or diminishing any right or benefit available to the workmen under the provisions of the Schedule."

6. The question is whether it can be said that the payment of wages for the period of illegal lock-out is a matter guaranteed under the provisions of the Schedule. The payment of wages for the period of illegal lock-out is in the discretion of the Court. It does not form part of the Standings Orders. It is for the parties to settle the same by an amicable settlement.) Moreover, there had been another agreement dated 20-6-72, which I have already mentioned, between the President and the General Secretary of the. Union, on the one hand, and the Management on the other hand. The last paragraphs of 'his agreement read as under :-

"The legal dues of all the workers who have not yet cleared their dues would be paid within seven days. The amount of those workers wb0 do not come to collect their dues would be deposited with the Authority under Payment of Wages Act on the application of the workers.

The Management further agreed to clear dues of those workers whose names were not shown in the agreement, signed previously, after scrutiny of their available record within seven days . . . . . ."

7. This agreement also supports tae conclusion that the workers of the union were satisfied with the agreement-dated 22-3-1971. The only items which were not settled under the agreement of 22-3-1971, were about bonus and Workers Participation Fund. These were settled by the agreement dated 20-6-1.972. After a perusal of these two agreements between the parties, i.e, dated 22-3-1971 and 20.6-1972. I have come to the conclusion that the workers of the Union had agreed to settle their demand about payment of, ages for the period that they were illegally locked-out in the terms described under the agreement.

8. For the reasons given above, I would dismiss the appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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