Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑272 of 1981, heard on 23^rdAugust, 1981.

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

‑‑‑ S. O. 10‑C‑Bonus‑Dispute regarding calculation of bonus------Workers' Union claiming same to be calculated on wages including allowances‑Management contending that according to operative settlement allowances were not to form part of wages‑‑Matter in volving interpretation of settlement‑‑Within jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Labour Court coming to conclusion accor dingly but deciding merits of dispute on application under S. 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and dismissing application of workers' Union‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, should have stayed its hand instead of proceeding further in deciding matter on merits‑Labour Court, held further, should have either' advised applicant to approach Labour Appellate Tribunal under S. 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or should have itself made a reference to Labour Appellate Tribunal‑Interpretation of settle ment‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII1 of 1969), S. 50.

Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Appellants.

Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23^rdAugust, 1981.

This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Labour Court No. V, made on 23rd April, 1981, dismissing an application filed by the appellant Union praying that a direction be issued to the respondent company to pay bonus to its workmen tinder standing Order 10‑C on the basis of wages; including allowances such as house rent, medical allowance etc. This application was made by the Union in view of the fact that whereas it was the case of the respondent Company that according to the settlements entered into by the Company with the CBA, the allowance granted to the workmen under the settlements were not to form part of the wages for the purposes of computing the profit bonus under Standing Order 10‑C, it was the case of the appellant Union that the statutory bonus had to be computed on the wages which included all such allowan ces. The learned Labour Court, by the impugned order has held, relying upon the decision of the Karachi High Court in the case of Fouji Sugar Mills Employees' Union v. Fouji Sugar Mills Ltd., given on 13th April, 1976, that the application of the appellant is not maintainable ac it involved interpretation of settlements under section 50, I. R. O., which was the exclusive function of this Tribunal. However the learned Labour Court went on to examine the issue whether the workmen in the respon dent Company are entitled to statutory bonus on wages inclusive of all allowances as also profit bonus and has held purporting to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pak Sovenier Labour Union v. Pakistan Tobacco Company, given on 25th March, 1981, that the claim of the appellant Union has no substance.

2. In view of the fact that the learned Labour Court has unambi guously held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the case, which primarily involve the interpretation of settlements, and in respect of the provisions whereof there was admittedly a dispute, the learned Labour Court should have dismissed the application under section 34, I. R. O., on that ground alone and either advise the parties to refer the matter under section 50, 1. R. O., to this Tribunal for the interpretation of the disputed provisions of the settlement or itself should have made a reference as was done by the High Court in the case of Fouji Sugar Mills. By proceedings to examine the validity of the claim of the appellant after holding that the claim rested on the interpretation o settlements which was exclusive function of this Tribunal the learned Labour Court has taken up contradicted position. Once it has held that the particular matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of another Tribunal then the Court or Authority before which proceeding are instituted should' stay its hand and not further proceed with the matter to decide it on merits. I am constrained to observe that the learned Labour Court ha unfortunately itself exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the merit of the application, I would therefore, while agreeing with the Labour Court that the application of the appellant Union under section 34, I. R. O., was not maintainable, as it involves the interpretation settlement, would not agree with the other ground on which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the application of the Union. 3. As the application under section 34, I. R. O.. by the appellant Union was not maintainable in the circumstances of the instant case, I would dismiss this appeal on that ground alone. It would, of course, be open to either party to approach this Tribunal under section 50, 1. R. O., for the interpretation of the provisions of the settlements reached between the parties.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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