Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑41 of 1975, decided on 25th July 1975.

‑‑ S. 34 read with S. 2(xiii) [as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (XIX of 1974;] and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 10‑C‑‑‑"Industrial dispute"‑Bonus‑Right of bonus being guaranteed by S. O. 10, C does not amount to industrial dispute‑‑Rights of parties under Standing Orders Ordinance to be determined by Labour Court under S 34.

‑‑ Settlement in violation of law‑Cannot have binding force on workman nor deprive him of benefits (guaranteed by law).

Malik Mohammad Saeed for Appellant.

Samiullah Khan for Respondent.

This is an appeal under section 37 of the I. R. O. against the award of the Labour Court dismissing the industrial dispute.

2. The parties had entered into a settlement on 14‑‑1973 agreeing to the payment of bonus for the year 1973 at the rate of 65 days' wages proportionate to their service period on the assumption that the profit shall not be less than twenty‑eight lacs, subject to the condition that if there was no profit the workers would not be entitled to any bonus as by that time the account was not settled. According to the contention of the workers the profit for the year 1973 was about seventy‑six lacs and as such they were entitled to get the bonus as laid down by Standing Order 10‑C of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The Management did not agree, and, therefore, the Union made an application to this Tribunal under section 50 of the I. R. O. for the interpretation of the Settlement. The reference was rejected on the ground that there was no ambiguity in the settlement itself and it was left to the workers to either raise any industrial dispute or approach the Labour Court under section 34 of the I. R. O. The Union adopted the formal course and raised the industrial dispute. It was taken to the Labour Court but it was dismissed on the preliminary objection that industrial dispute could not be raised. Consequently the present appeal had been filed.

3. On hearing the arguments I fully endorse the view taken by the Labour Court that industrial dispute with regard to the benefits allowed under Standing Order 10‑C of the Standing Orders Ordinance could not be raised in view of the definition for the term provided by section 2 (xiii) as amended by Ordinance No. XIX of 1974. According to this definition any right gua ranteed or secured to the workman by or under any law, other than Industrial Relations Ordinance was excluded from the definition. The right to bonus has been guaranteed by Standing Orders Ordinance and, therefore, it does not amount to any industrial dispute. My observation while dealing with the case under section 50 of the I. R. O. was based on the definition of the term as existed prior to the amendment which was not brought to my notice. The proper course for the Union is to approach the Labour Court under sec tion 34 of the I. R. O. It shall be the duty of the Labour Court to entertain the application under section 34 and determine the rights of the parties in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 10‑C. It requires no emphasis that any settlement in violation of law cannot have any binding force on the workman and cannot deprive him of the benefits. Such a settlement must be ignored as null and void. In case my application under section 34 is made to the Labour Court it shall determine the amount of profit made by the Management and award the bonus in terms of Standing Order 10‑C.

4. With these observations the appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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