SYED INAM UR REHMAN, MEMBER.---- The above named Appellant has challenged the order dated 18-8-2009 passed by learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court-IV Karachi whereby petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed.
2. We have heard the Appellant in person, learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the record.
3. The Appellant has stated in open Court that original purpose for the filing of petition was with regards to his promotion which has not been solved by the department. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in rebuttal stated that present appeal is not relating to the promotion but was filed by the Appellant for recovery of some arrears. We have perused the record, which shows that originally the Appellant has filed petition under Section 62 of the I.R.O, 2002 allegedly that he was employed on permanent job as Press Sheer Operator in P.G.IV . In his case that he was given merit and time scale promotion from time to time according to pay scales, grades as were revised by the Respondent from time to time due settlement with CBA. Case of the Appellant is that change of all grades and scale created anomalies but some worke rs approached the Court and such controversy was resolved, therefore, Respondent paid increment / entitlement, according to the entitlement and scale. However , the Appellant though entitled for the benefit and increment was not allowed his basic pay which according to him was becoming Rs.17820 but he was paid Rs.10143. Thus, according to Petitioner he was entitled to receive Rs.650652 as arrears of basic wages plus allowances admissible under law and despite the applications made by the Appellant, the benefits of two judgments were not extended to him and the Respondent failed to determine the entitlement of amount of the Appellant according to those judgments. Hence, this petition is filed for determination and recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant prior to that had approached the Service Tribunal in this regard, however , on abatement of the proceedings by order of Hon'ble Supreme Court the Appellant approach this Court and this. Court return the petition on the ground that final order was not passed by the Federal Service Tribunal declaring the abatement of the proceedings. The Appellant subsequently obtained the order and filed the petition. The Appellant in petition has calculated his entitlement in terms of the judgment announced in case filed by his colleagues. It is case of the Appellant that he was being paid an amount of Rs.10143 as a basic wage, where as his basic wage becomes Rs.17320 in pursuance of the Judgment given in a case of his colleagues and he is entitled for the amount which is mentioned in petition.
Appellant prayed for that amount and fixation of basic wages.
4. After service Respondent filed written statement claiming that he was not en-titled to receive any payment whatsoever is claimed by him from the Respondent and his claim is barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that no right guaranteed to the Appellant under any law was infringed. They also challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the matter relates to the jurisdiction of payment of wages authority under payment of wages Act and the Appellant should have approach that authority of which the Labour Court is appellate authority .
The remaining allegations were denied by the Respondent and alleged that case of one Zahid Hussain was on different footings to that of the present Appellant to whom benefits were given by the Superior Courts and no such issue was agitated by the Appellant at any stage.
5. After, hearing Appellant in person and learned Counsel for the respondent, the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court-1V dismissed the petition of the Appellant with the following observation: "Before any Court or Tribunal acts under Section 51 of I.R.O, 1969 or section 62 of I.R. 0, 2002 it is imperative that there should be no dispute as to the entitlement of the amount of the Petitioner for the recovery of money due but the amount in respect of which the proceedings can be initiated must be pre -determined amount. If there is a dispute in respect of the entitlement of such amount or the amount is not pre-determined then it cannot be recovered under Section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969. The above views were expressed by Hon'ble Sindh High Court in case Matri Publication v. Tribunal reported as 1993 PLC 574. In another case Syed Arif Raza Rizvi v. PIA reported as 2001 PLC 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 51 now 62 of I.R.O., 2008 is invoked subject to the condition that there was no dispute regarding the entitlement of the petitioner and the claim must be one pre- determined. A fundamental question touching upon the maintainability of the applic ation under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969 or under Section 62 of the I.R.O., 2002 cannot be adjudicated upon and decided by Labour Court in view of the limited nature of powers vested in it under Section 51. In another case Tobacco International Limited v.
Chairman SLAT, reported as 1969 PLC 39 it was also held that subsection (2) of Sections 51/62 only enables Labour Court to determine the amount of money due if the same is capable of being computed in terms of money and the said subsection nowhere empowers the Labour Court to adjudicate any claim between the employee and the employer or determine question raising issue of fundamental nature in regard to the maintainability of the petition itself and such question cannot be decided by the Labour Court by virtue of limited nature of powers vested in it. So the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide above application, is only when the amount is pre-determined and there is no dispute regarding that amount. The petitioner did not give details of the amount which he has claimed and without going through the details Court cannot reach to the conclusion that what is due amount. Thus, the amount is not pre-determined and petition is not maintainable under law, therefore, the same is dismissed and the petitioner is held to be not entitled for the amount claimed".
6. Today , Appellant who himself argued the matter and mentioned above his grievance relates to the promotion not to the amount, however , reasons given by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court are clear and no any a illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order , hence, we found no merits in the appeal, therefore, same stands dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due completion.