DECISION This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned First Labour Court, given on 30-3-1982, upon an application under section 34. I.R.O. Made by the respondent union.
2. The facts, which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal--- briefly stated, are that a settlement was arrived at between the appellant company and the respondent union, one of the terms whereof was that the prevailing practice would continue in regard to the demand of the respondent union for payment of medical allowance/charges. It is an admitted position that the prevailing practice was that a sum of Rs. 750 per annum was being paid to each member of clerical staff and an amount of Rs. 500 per annum was being paid to each other type of workmen as medical allow--ance. Despite the above settlement the appellant company did not pay the aforesaid medical allowance with effect from October, 1980. The respondent union, thereupon, preferred an application under section 34, I.R.O. To the learned First Labour Court to issue direction to the appellant company to pay the aforesaid allowances/charges to the clerical staff and other workmen in the appellant company. The appellant company resisted this application on the Social Security Institution and its workmen were covered by the benefits laid down in the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Ids workmen were not entitled to the medical allowances/charges under the settlement of 26-11-1980. Support for this contention was sought from section 73 of the aforesaid Ordinance, which reads as follows:- "73. Bar on benefits under outer laws.-When a person is. Entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Ordinance, he shall not be entitled to any similar benefit under any other law."
3. The learned Labour Court repelled the above contention of the appellant company on the basis of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of New Jubilee Insurance Employees Union v. New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd., decided on 20-4-1980, wherein it was held that benefits under the law as contemplated by section 73 of the aforesaid Ordinance are quite distinct from the benefits which may be won under a settlement or award, This Tribunal, in the aforesaid case, gave following reasons in support of this view. ---17. I also find no substance in the contention of Mr. Mehmood Ghani that the medical benefits admissible to the employees of the respondent company under the settlements are deemed to be benefits under law for the purposes of section 73 of the Social Security Ordi--nance. The precise argument of Mr. Mehmood Ghani was that the expression "under any other law", used in the said section means 'pursuant to any other law, and since the agreement in question have been made in pursuance of the provisions of the I.R.O. The benefits admissible under the agreements are deemed to be benefits under law. Reliance was placed in support of this view upon the decision in the case of Ali Mohammad v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1953 Lah. 210), and the definition of the words "under", by law" and "under the act" given in Words and Phrases, Stround's Judicial Dictionary, Ballentin's Law Dictionary and Law Terms & Phrases by Savdar Mohammad Iqbal Mogul. In Ali Mohammad's case, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan was called upon to consider contention of the word `under this Act' appearing in section 39 of the State Duty Act, 1950. The said section lays down that save as provided in the Act, nothing done or to good faith purporting to be done by the Board under the Act shall be called in question in any Court. It was held that from the plain reading of the section, the jurisdiction of Courts is specifically barred to question anything done or in good faith purported to be done by the Board. Their Lordships relied for this view upon the prin--ciple enunciated by the Privy Council in the case of Raleigh Industrial Company Ltd. v. Governor-General-in-Council (PLD 1974 P. C. 19) and the observations made by their Lordships of the Privy Council in that case that the phase "assessment made under this Act" in the "Income-tax Act describes" the Province of the assessment, it does not relate for its accuracy in point of law. The use of machinery provided by the Act, not the result of that use, is the test.'
18. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary the words `under or by virtue of'. In Ballentine's Law Dictionary, the expression 'by law' has been defined as `in accordance with law', Sardar Muhammad lqbal Mogul, in his Law Terms & Phrases Judicially interpreted, has brought out the distinction 'b5' :an acct' and 'under this act'. According to 'earned Author, `by an act Would mean by the provision directly enacted in the statute in question and is gatherable from the language of the Statute while the words `under the act' would in the context signify what is not directly to be found in the Statute itself but is conferred or imposed by virtue of powers - enabling this to be done. However, were be interpretation which may be given to the words any similar benefits under any, other law", as appearing in section 73 of the Social Security Ordinance, I am of the view that they will not cove benefits admissible under settlement or agreements which are the result of volauntary and mutual actions of the parties and are not imposed by or under any law. The mere fact that the settlements may have been made pursuant to a law does not make the benefits admissible under the settle-- ments, benefits under law. After all, every agreement or settlement is made under a statute and the rights thereunder are similarly protected. Under a statute. This does not mean that the rights conferred or liability imposed by the agreements themselves are under any law. The medical benefits granted to the employees of the respondent company under the settlement in question being the result of the mutual agreements between the parties thus cannot be considered to be benefits under law, Social Security Ordinance."
4. It may be pointed out that the I.R.O. Makes a clear distinction between rights and benefits conferred under a law and those which are conferred by an award or settlement. It is this distinction which necessi--tated specific reference to rights and benefits conferred or secured by law, settlement or a- and in various provisions of the I.R.O. Particularly in sections 2 (xiii), 22 (12) (a), 25, 34, etc. As I see it the right under a law are those which are directly conferred by the law, while the rights conferred by a settlement may be referred as settlement rights or those which have been won by the parties through negotiations. Furthermore a settlement under the I.R.O. Is of a transitional nature and it expires either after two years, if no period for its enforcement is specified or on the expiry of the period for which it is stated to remain in force.
5. The Provincial Employees' Social 'Security Ordinance, 1965, does not define the term law'. There is, however an exhaustive discussion on the concept of law by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Miss Asma Jillani v. The Government of the Punjab (PLD1972SC139) I may, in this behalf, refer to the observation of Hamoodur Rahman, C.J., in the above case as to the definition of law with which a Judge may be concerned :-- "So far as a Judge is concerned, if a definition is necessary, all that he has to see is that the law which he is called upon to administer is made by a person or authority legally competent to make laws and the law is capable of being enforced by the legal machinery. This, in my view, being in the notion both of legitimacy and efficacy "
6. The above definition clearly ousts settlements from the definition of law, though the settlements may be made pursuant to a law, in the instant case, the I.R.O. As this Tribunal has pointed out in the case of the Jubilee Insurance Company there is a clear distinction between a right conferred by or under the law and rights or benefits conferred by an agree meat made under law
7. Since the rights conferred upon the workmen in the establishment of the appellant-Company, as regards payment of medical allowances/charges have been conferred under the settlement these rights, in my humble opinion, are not rights conferred by law and consequently section 73 of - the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, does not deprive, the workman of the said rights.
8. For the reasons discussed by my above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.