' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---This is a revision application under section 48 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 filed by Karachi Marriott Hotel, with a request to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of order dated 30-10-2004 passed by the Labour Court No,V, Karachi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that after the dismissal of the respondent from the employment of the applicants, he filed a grievance petitions before the Labour Court on 2-4-1995. The Labour Court reinstated the respondent but did not allow him back-benefits. The applicants and respondent challenged the decision of Labour Court before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The said Tribunal set aside the order of the Labour Court by allowing the appeal of applicants and dismissing the appeal of the respondent vide order dated 9-10-1995. Both the parties filed Constitution petitions before this Court challenging the decision of the said Tribunal. On 17-10-1995 this Court stayed the operation of the order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi. In the meantime the applicants reinstated the respondent but were allowed him to remain on special leave with full salary. The respondent filed grievance petition before the Labour Court alleging that the applicants did not pay him the salary and benefits as per agreement executed between them and C.B.R. The notice of the grievance petition was served upon the applicants who stated that the respondent was reinstated on 7-5-1995 with immediate effect. The Labour Court did not grant the back-benefits therefore there was no decisions of Labour Court. The respondent was paid salary and other benefits which he was drawing at the time of dismissal. The Labour Court vide order dated 30-10-2004 directed the applicants to pay Rs,3,30,519 to the respondent being deference of the amount already received by him and entitled to receive the amount within a period of two months. The applicants have alleged that the said order is illegal therefore it requires interference.
3. I have heard the parties' Advocates, perused the record of this case and the law, involved in the matter very carefully.
4. The learned Advocate for the applicants has argued that the Labour Court did not grant back- benefits to the respondent therefore no amount was due to be paid by the applicants to the respondent therefore the grievance petition was not maintainable; that the salary was paid to the respondent which he was drawing at the time of his dismissal; that the respondent was granted special leave therefore he is not entitled for any other benefits. Conversely the learned Advocate for the respondents has challenged the maintainability of the revision application by arguing that the applicant cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court as no power has been given the parties to file revision application; that the High Court can examine the correctness and propriety of the order under its suo motu powers as such the revision application is not maintainable. He has further stated that the respondent was reinstated in service therefore he was entitled to receive the salary and other benefits from the date of reinstatement.
5. As regard the maintainability of the revision application the revisional powers have been given to this Court under section 48 (3) of the I.R.O., 2002 that reads as under:-- "(3) The High Court may, on its own motion, at any time, call for the record of any case of proceedings under this Ordinance in which a Labour Court within its jurisdiction has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of such order, and may pass such order, in relation thereto as it thinks fit:"
6. From the above provision of law it is clear that the Court has been empowered to exercise revisional powers on its own motion only. The parties have not been given power to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Court therefore the parties cannot file revision application as a matter of right. However suo motu powers can be exercised on information received from any source. No restriction has been imposed upon the Court to receive information from any person. As such the information can be supplied by the parties or by any third person or through print or electronic madia or by examining the orders and related matters of the Labour Court so on and so forth.
Revisional powers are very wide powers as the Court has been empowered to pass any order in relation to the matter as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. Therefore no restriction can be imposed upon the Court on the source of information which can be received from anybody including the parties or through any source. Once information is received and the Court finds that the information is such where the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order or proceedings of Labour Court can be examined then the information can be entertained to exercise suo motu powers.
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent has cited various authorities of High Court in support of his contention. Suffice it to say that the Hon. Supreme Court of Pakistan has considered the above legal question in the case of Norwich Union F. I. S. Ltd. v. Muhammad Javed Iqbal, 1986 SCM R 1071. In the said 'authority the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan examined section 38 (3-A) of I.R.O., 1969 which is corresponding to section 48 (3) of I.R.O., 2002, at page 1073 it has been observed as under:-- "So for the first argument is concerned, no principle of law or any precedent was quoted to show that the suo motu power cannot be invoked by the authority vested with it on the application of a party to the proceedings before the subordinate forum or authorities. On the perusal of the provisions of section (3-A) of section 38, we find no warrant to hold that there would be any bar on the Tribunal to exercise this jurisdiction, if the requisite information comes before it from any source including an application made by any party. Apparently the jurisdiction seems to be supervising in nature in order to enable the Tribunal which is at apex of the hierarchy of Tribunal set up by the Industrial Relations Ordinance to examine the legality or propriety of proceedings taken or an order passed by subordinate Tribunals."
8. In view of above authoritative decision of the Honourable Suprme Court of Pakistan the arguments of the learned Advocate for the respondent have no force. The Revision application is maintainable.
9. Admitted facts are that the Labour Court reinstated the respondent on 2-4-1995. On 7-5-1995 the applicants reinstated the respondent in service with immediate effect with condition not to attend the duties as the applicants granted special leave to the respondent with full pay till further orders. On 9-10-1995 the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Labour Court.
After passing of such order the respondent was not terminated again because immediately thereafter on 17-10-1995 the High Court stayed the order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal as such the applicants allowed the respondent to continue to be on duty but to be on leave. The dispute between the parties is as to whether during the period of reinstatement the respondent was entitled to full benefits or otherwise. Section 62 of by I.R.O., 2002 deals with the above subject which reads as under:- "62. Recovery of money due from an employer under an award or settlement.---(1) Any money due from an employer under an award, settlement or decision of the arbitrator, Labour Court or High Court may be recovered as areas of land revenue or as a public demand if, upon an application of the person entitled to the money, the Labour Court so directs.
(2) When any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, under an award, settlement or decision of the arbitrator, the Labour Court or High Court, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit shall be computed may, subject to the rules made under this Ordinance, be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection
(1) and paid to the workman concerned by a specified date."
10. From the above provisions of law it is clear that under subsection (1) if under an award, settlement or decision of the Labour Court, or the arbitrator or the High Court, any money is due from an employer, which is required to be paid to the worker then it can be recovered as areas of land revenue or on a public demand if, on the application of the person entitled to the money, the Labour Court so directs. Under subsection (2) if under an award, settlement or decision of the Labour Court, or the arbitrator or the High Court, any workman is entitled to receive from an employer any benefit that is capable of being computed in terms of money and the amount at which such benefit is required to be computed may subject to the rules made under the Ordinance be determined and recovered as areas of land revenue and paid to the workman concerned by a specified date.
11. In the present case the Labour Court had reinstated the respondent. On his reinstatement he is entitled to receive the salary and other benefits as permissible under the law. The respondent has categorically stated that the salary and other benefits were not being paid to him. The said benefits can be computed in terms of money. As such the case of the respondent is covered by subsection (2) of section 62 of I.R.O., 2002. The applicants in their objections have admitted that the respondent was being paid the salary which he was drawing at the time of his dismissal. The said dismissal was made in the year 1993. The applicants witness has specifically admitted in the cross- examination that four allowances namely guaranteed pay allowance, attendance allowance, increase in basic pay, increase in other allowances as per notification issued by the Government from time to time were not being paid to the respondent. Thus it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the respondent did not receive the salary and other benefits as per law. He has calculated the difference between the amount received by him and amount he was entitled to receive. The difference comes to Rs,3,30,519.
12. The Labour Court after considering the evidence has rightly directed the applicants to pay the said amount to the respondent. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order as such it does not require any interference. However the applicants are directed to pay the said amount to the respondent within a period of 30 days. If the said amount is not paid within the above mentioned period then the same shall be recovered from the applicants as areas of land revenue.
Consequently the application is dismissed.