MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, J.--These are five connected petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution, challenging the orders passed by Senior Member, National Industrial Relation Commission, directing re-instatement of the respondent employee with back benefits.
2. In the first four petitions these employees were serving as Checkers, Data Processing Manager, Senior Checkers m the Security Staff and Con--troller of Stores in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited. They were found by the said Corporation to be guilty of misconduct and unfit to be retained and their services were accordingly terminated. They filed applications in respect of their grievances before the Chairman, National Industrial. Relations Commission under section 6 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The petitions were heard by the Senior Member of the Commission who passed impugned orders directing their re-instatement in service.
3. In the last petition the petitioner was working in the establishment of Respondent No. 2, Sui Gas Transmission Company Limited. There was a settlement of the employees with the company regarding scales of pay and this memorandum of settlement had been published in the Government Gazette. The petitioner claims that under this settlement he was entitled to an increment of Rs. 31 bringing his pay in the grade of Rs. 835 plus 31 but he was placed in the grade of Rs. 690 plus 25. The petitioner then moved an application under section 6 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 in the Court of the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Com--mission (hereinafter called the NIRC). The Senior Member of the Commis--sion heard this petition of grievances for violating the terms of settlement and disposed of the same on the preliminary issue, that in case any directions of the `Prescribed authority' had not been implemented then the only course open was to follow the procedure laid down tinder section 7 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act by filing a complaint for offence before the Court empowered to try: such offences.
4. It is the case of Mr. A. Aziz on behalf of the K.E.S.C. In respect of the first four petitions that the order of the Senior Member NIRC for re-instatement of the discharged employees of the KESC had been passed without jurisdiction as NIRC was not the specified authority under section 6(1) of the said Act. That in any case all that the specified authority could do under the said Act was to regulate the wages and other conditions of service of such persons engaged, in employment to which the Act applied. Therefore, the Member of the NIRC had no powers to re-instate any employee whose services had been terminated.
5. In the last petition it is the case of Mr. Shahani appearing on behalf of the petitioner employee, that his petition for enforcement of the Memo. Of Settlement entitling the petitioner to a particular grade and increment could not be dismissed by the Senior Member, NIRC, on the ground that he had no powers under the Act to enforce or punish a violation of settlement which could may be done under section 7 of the Act by filing a proper complaint for the offence and that the application was not, therefore, maintainable. 'Mr. Shahani has argued that an authority which has power to regulate or fix the wages has also the power to enforce payment of such wages by the employer. That the Commission should, therefore, have issued specific directions regarding fixation and payment of the wages of the petitioner as claimed by him under the settlement.
6. Regarding the question of jurisdiction of the Senior Member of the Commission to deal with the case under section 6 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, Mr. Shah Jamil Alam, Deputy Attorney General has correctly pointed out that under the rules framed in 1962 the B `prescribed authority' under section 6 was the Central Labour Commissioner. In the year 1974 the Central Labour Commissioner was sub--stituted by the Chairman, NIRC. Under SRO 1004(1) of 1974 dated 22nd July, 1974 issued under rule 2-B, `Chairman' was defined as Chairman of NIRC including a Member of that Commission authorised by the Chairman in this behalf. Lastly the position has been further clarified by notification of the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission that the specified authority under the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, can hear the grievance in respect of any right guaranteed to an employee under any law, settlement or award for the time being in force relating to wages and other conditions of service including retrenchment, discharge, dismissal or termination from service and the Chairman or a Member of the said Commission authorised by him in this behalf, shall hear the apple--cant and the employer, and pass such directions as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. These directions are dated 23rd December, 1978.
7. Similar questions were raised in the case of General Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex, Texila v. Member, NIRC and another (PLD 1977 Lah. 982). It was observed that the definition of `Chairman' in the rules did not offend against the principles governing the exercise of delegated power. That any member of the Commission could act as the specified authority subject to the directions of the Chairman. By nominating a member as the specified authority under section 6, the Chairman did not violate any D principle of delegation. We are also of the view that the Chairman as the `specified authority' could under rule 2(4) authorise the Senior Member in these cases to hear the petitions in question.
8. That next question that arises in this case is regarding the extent and scope of the directions that can be issued by the `specified authority' for regulating the wages and conditions of service, whether the Chairman can only issue general regulations in this behalf or examine the grievance in individual cases. In other words, whether any dispute between the emp--loyer and the employee in respect of the service to which Act applies, could be heard and the grievances could be redressed by issuing directions in that behalf. In the Lahore case above referred to it was held that the wages and conditions of service relating to individual cases also include questions of dismissal for misconduct and the directions given by the specified authority had to be complied with. The decision in the above Lahore case was called in question in Intra-Court Appeal before a Division Bench of the same Court. The word `regulate the wages' under its plain meaning was found to include the fixing of the amount, or adjusting the same. The power to regulate wages, therefore, included settlement of individual disputes and redressing of individual grievances that might arise in enforcing the rights and obligations. The Division Bench, however held that the prescribed authority' could not set aside the dismissal of employee, unless a proper enquiry had not been held, for in that case, the order of dismissal would be bad and it would amount to acting in aid of illegality and injustice if such a bad order was perpetuated.
9. In case of Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. v. Central Labour Commis--sioner and 5 others (PLD 1976 Kar. 1118) it was held by one of us, that the word `regulate' included determination of age of superannuation and re-instatement of a retired employee and as such the `prescribed authority' was competent to order re-instatement in service.
10. The last question that remains to be determined is whether the prescribed authority could examine an individual grievance regarding imple--mentation of a settlement of award in regulating wages. It has already been pointed out that the term `regulating wages' would mean fixing the amount of wages in individual cases and adjudicating any disputes relating to wages in such cases. It is true that even though the powers of the prescribed authority in respect of regulation of wages have not been clearly defined these powers would cover all such ancillary powers required for redressing the grievance of an affected employee for unless the directions issued by the prescribed authority are actually enforced by the same authority, such directions would be in the nature of mere recommendations. It is true that under section 7 of the said Act penalties and procedures are prescribed for offences under the Act but for such complaints sanction of the Central Government is required and necessity would arise for prose--cutions only when the specific directions given by the authority are dis--obeyed. Here the question is whether the individual cases can be examine and specific directions can be given. We are of the view that there is no bar to entertainment of such petitions regarding adjudication of individual disputes relating to fixation of wages etc., under the settlement or award. It is only when the appropriate wages so fixed are denied to the individual employee that necessity may arise for prosecution of the employer for an offence under the Act.
11. In the result the first four petitions filed by the KESC are dis--missed. It would, however, be open to the KESC to hold a proper enquiry and thereafter deal with the individual cases of the respondents in accor--dance with law.
12. In the case of Petition No. 554/76 it is declared that the `prescribe--ed authority' had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the individual grievance of the petitioner and his case should be reheard by the said authority and disposed of on merits. The last petition is disposed of accordingly.
AGHA ALI HYDER, J.------I agree.