Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 192 of 1974, decided on 19th June 1975.

-- S. 2(d) read with West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance (VIII of 1969), S. 5 - Undertaking -- Agricultural Farm - Growing varieties of foodgrain and supplying in Market for profitable business An undertaking for purposes of Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973-Employees of Farm entitled to benefits of cost of living allowance.

--- S. 25-A read with Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act (I of 1974), S. 6-Remedy to seek cost of living--Jurisdiction of Labour Court- Not ousted-Claim of workmen for cost of living allowance payable under Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973-Right guaranteed and secured under law-Forms terms and conditions of service enforceable under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Petition of workmen seeking remedy for payment of cost of living allowance, held maintainable before Labour Court under S. 25-A of industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

Muhammad Siddiqui for Appellant.

Sultan Muhammad for Respondent.

An appeal has been filed by B. C. G. A. (Punjab) Limited Farm. Civil Line, Khanewal, D1strict Multan, against the order of the learned Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 19th February, 1974 whereby respondents workmen, fifty in number were awarded cost of living allowance at Rs. 35 P. M. with effect from 1st August, 1972 under the provisions of the Employees Cost of Living Allowance (Relief Act, 1972) which was refused to be paid by the appellant establishment. According to the learned Junior Labour Court the respondents were the employees and the appellant Management Commer cial Establishment covered by the-Aforesaid Act in regard to the obligation of the payment of the cost of the living allowance.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, hereinafter men tioned as the ordinance was not maintainable before the Learned Junior Labour Court, that no grievance notice was given to the appellant Management before filing the said petition which was man datory, ;that provisions of the Ordinance were not applicable to the employees of an Agricultural Farm run by the appellant Management nor the Agricultural Farm could be defined as undertaking within the meaning of section 2 (D-1) of the Employees' Cost of Living Relief Act, 1973, here inafter mentioned as Relief Act, read with section 2 (e) of the W. P. Shops Establishment Act, 1969, and that the relief sought by the respondents could appropriately be sought under section 6 of the Relief Act, form the Authority appointed under sub-section 1 of section 12 of W P Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969, or the Authority under subsection (1) of section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

The first contention has no force as the petition before the learned Junior Labour Court contains all the names of the respondents who got themselves represented through one of the workman named Wariam in addition to their counsel in whose favour all the respondents executed a power of attorney. This being so, I sat of the view that the presentation of the petition before the learned lower Court was competent in the eye of law and as such was rightly entertained.

The contention regarding the non-service of grievance notice also fails in view of a grievance notice dated 16th January, 1974 having been served on the appellant Management on behalf of thirty out of fifty respondents workmen. It was not necessary that all the fifty workmen should have served fifty notices separately. One grievance notice containing the sub stance of notice applicable to any number of affected workers by one and the same action of the Management was sufficient to call upon the Manage ment to consider the grievance of the workman. The grievance notice, dated 16th January, 1974 (Copy Annexure A) was duly replied on behalf of the appellant-Management through its counsel,-vide reg1stered letter dated 26th January 1974. So the grievance notice cannot be said as wanting in the present case.

The third objection made on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant Management is not maintaining and undertaking Commercial establishment covered under the provisions of the Relief Act, and W. P. Shops and Establishments Ordinance. It is urged that the establishment maintained by the appellant is an Agricultural Farm which falls short of the definition of the undertaking and Commercial Establishment. The Relief Act, has been made applicable throughout Pakistan and under section 3 of the Act every employee in respect of his employment on or after the first date of August, 1973, has become entitled to be paid by his employer a cost of living allowance of Rs. 35 if his wages do not exceed Rs. 700 and a difference of Rs. 35 if wages or less than Rs. 735. The employer has been defined in the Act as a person employing any other person as an employee in relation to an under taking under the control of the said employer. An undertaking has been defined as an establishment to which the W. P. Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, applies including Clubs Hostels etc., maintained for profit or gain. A commercial establishment under the last mentioned Ordinance means an establishment which carries on any Trade, or Profession or any work in connection with, or incidental or ancillary to any business, Trade or Profession including a. Society reg1stered under the Societies Reg1stration Act, 1860.

An "Establishment" under the Ordinance means any office, Firm, Indus trial Unit Undertaking, Shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on any Industrial work. In the light of these definitions of the relevant terms used in the Relief Act, the Agricultural Farm run by the appellant Management can scarcely be taken out of the scope of an establishment hit by the incidence of high cost of living relief accorded to the employee under the law. Obviously the appellant Management is running number of Factories in various towns alongwith Agricultural Farm in Tehsil Khanewal growing variety of Food Grain and supply them in the Market for the purpose of profitable business. This being so the agricultural farm run by the appellant Management must fall within the mischief of the operative section of the Relief Act liable to pay the additional relief of Rs. 35 P. M. to the specifies category of its employees. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant Management that the Agricultural Farm managed by the appellant is not profitable business is not understandable as much as all the necessary elements constituting an Industry or Establish ment cannot be said missing from the business carried on by the appellant Management. It is clearly a large scale firm in which workmen are employed A for carrying on business of profit alongwith certain occupations incidental to such business, such being the case the liability of the appellant establish ment from the payment of the high cost of living relief in question to its employees cannot be avoided.

It is lastly urged on behalf of the appellant that the relief could not be claimed by the respondents under section 25-.A of the Ordinance. No doubt section 6 of the High Cost of Relief Act, provides that the workers in respect of the establishment covered by the W. P. Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969, can apply to the Authority appointed under sub section (I) of section 12 there of the payment of the withheld wages under the Relief Act and in any other case an authority appointed under subsection (1) of the section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, can be moved for the same redress. But the provisions of section 6 of the Act, do not bar the remedy provided, to the workers under section 25-A of the Ordinance which afford a comprehensive remedy to all the workmen of an Industry or Commercial Establish ment. Moreover in the event of the denial of relief of the cost of the living allowance by the appellant-Management to its employees on the point of the interpretation of the relevant provision of law, it becomes a question of the terms and conditions of the service of the said employees which could not be determined by any Court other than Junior Labour Court in the first instance. In face of the fact that there is no bar provided in section 6 of the Relief Act as to the jurisdiction of any other Court in the matter the jurisdiction of Junior Labour Court cannot be ousted. Section 25-A of the Ordinance lays down in express terms that a worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law for the time being enforced to the notice of the employer and in the event of his dissatisfaction with his decision may take the matter to the Junior Labour Court for its judgment over the matter. Since the jurisdiction of an addi tional forum invokable by a worker for the redress of his grievance has not been expressly or impliedly excluded in section 6 of the High Cost of Living B Act, the respondents cannot be said to have invoked a wrong forum for the redress of their grievance, regard also being had to the fact that it purely became a question of the condition of service of the respondents workmen to get it determined whether they were entitled to the statutory relief of the High Cost of the living allowance of Rs. 35 as employees of undertaken run by the appellant Management. This being the position the respondents workmen have been given a relief due to them under the law by the learned lower Court, the impugned order, therefore, being upheld and 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.