' JUSTICE (RETD.) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).---This judgment shall decide applications filed .Under section 13(4) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 filed by as many as 53 petitioners in respect of the payment of the difference of admissible increment to each petitioner between the one allowed by the Fourth and Fifth Wage Board Awards.
2. The version of the petitioners is that the employees who were in regular service of the respondent management and had completed the minimum required length of service of six months as laid down in para 77 (iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award, were entitled to the arrears of the difference of annual increment as allowed by the 5th Wage Board Award against that which is being currently paid.
3. The learned counsel for the management, 'Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar controverted claim of the petitioner on the ground that para 77 (iv) did not create any right in the petitioner for receiving the increased annual increment as the petitioners had not completed six months regular service by the appointed date viz 15th April, 1990, the date on which the Fifth Wage Board Award became effective.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent further raised a legal objections on the ground of Limitation. According to the learned counsel as per rules 16 and 17 of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 1977; the petitions were barred by limitation as under rule 17, the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code 1908 with regard to civil suits may be followed as far as it can be made applicable in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that even if strictly speaking, the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable, the petitions filed in the year 2004 are atleast barred by laches and are thus not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as no suo motu action was taken by the Tribunal, this would preclude the petitioners from filing their claims at this belated stage.
6. Both the learned counsel have been heard at length and record perused. At the very outset it is observed that earlier case No,IT-1-222/ 95 filed by the Secretary General, Daily Jang and Press Workers Union, Rawalpindi on 21st March, 1995 in respect of an identical cause of grievance was decided by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 22-8-1996. The objection raised by the management upon. The strength of their interpretation of para 77 (iv) of the 5th Wage Board Award was repelled and the petitioners in that case were allowed the difference in annual increment between the Fourth and Fifth Wage Board Awards to all those employees who had served the management for six months or more at a particular stage of pay scale. In compliance of the said order the management, in accordance with their undertaking has already disbursed 50% of the total amount due on account of difference in increments to the petitioners of the said petition.
' It may be stated at this juncture that the aforesaid order of this Tribunal was assailed by the management in Writ Petition No,1759 of 1996 which was however dismissed by a learned Single Bench of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 9-5-2003 thereby upholding the judgment of this Tribunal. The learned Single Judge of the High Court approved the interpretation placed by the Tribunal upon the entitlement of the petitioners in that case to the receipt of the difference in increment as per the Fifth Wage Board Award.
7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court has been challenged in an I.C.A. Which is pending adjudication. It is not denied that there is no restraining order passed in the said I.C.A. For the reason that the management has already paid 50% of the increment dues to the claimants with the conditions that final status of further disbursement or refund shall depend upon ultimate decision in the I.C.A.
8. I find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the present petition(s) are hit either by limitation or by the principle of laches. It needs no gainsaying that no specific period of limitation is provided for filing of-a petition for implementation before the Tribunal. The petitions cannot also be defeated on the ground of laches as non-payment of increment as per the Fifth Wage Board Award is a continuing and recurring cause of grievance and no question of laches in such case would arise. This is particularly so as it is legal obligation of the management to implement by itself the conditions of the prevailing Wage Board Award.
9. The petitioners have pressed their claim for recovery of the arrears of increment according to the Fifth Wage Board Award. The factum of employment and the respective grades/pay scales of each present petitioner is not specifically denied. This being the position it is a simple question of calculation of the difference of increment as has been given to the petitioners under the Fourth Wage Board Award and the increment as per pay scale determined by the Fifth Wage Board Award with effect from its enforcement. I am fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees v. Matri Publications Ltd. 2001 PLC (Labour 662) where their lordships have held that where money due from the employer had been determined in the award/decision of the Wage Board, no further determination was required and the Tribunal was competent to issue direction for the recovery of money due against the employers. Decision of the Wage Board duly notified was binding on the employers and is within the competence and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to implement the same.
10. In view of the foregoing it is found that all the present petitioners are found entitled to the recovery of the difference of increment between the Fourth Wage Board Award and the Fifth Wage Board Award. These arrears shall be paid with effect from the effective date of the Fifth Wage Board Award. Keeping the principle of consistency in view, the respondent shall pay 50% of the total arrears to each of the employees/petitioners within a period of two months from today, with compliance report to this Tribunal through its Registrar. The question of refund of the arrears already received by the petitioners or payment of the balance 50% of arrears by the management shall follow the final judgment in the I.C.A.