1. A. S. MD. RASHED (CHAIRMAN). The General Secretary Renwick & Co. Limited Workers' Union has filed this application under section 34 read with sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and section 8 of the Minimum Wages Ordinance, '1959 as against the second parties namely M/s. Renwick Company Limited, Kushtia and others for fixation of the pay of the workers mentioned in Schedules A and B to the petition with a prayer for payment of arrear dues with effect from 1st February 1969 in respect of the employees mentioned in Schedule 'A' and with effect from 1st July 1969 in respect of the employees mentioned in Schedule 'B'. In respect of the three employees mentioned in Schedule 'C' the first party wants re-instatement of the employees wish back wages.
2. The case of the first party in short is that under the orders of the Martial Law Authority the second parties was to pay an ad hoc relief at Rs. 25 per cent. of the pay to the workers with effect from 1st of February 1969 but in violation of the said order the second parties did not pay the ad hoc relief to 11 of the workers mentioned in Schedule A to the position. With regard to the workers numbering 22 mentioned in Schedule B the second parties refused to grant the ad hoc relief to these workers with effect from 1st of July 1969 after the introduction of Minimum Wages Ordi--nance, 1969 and deducted the ad hoc relief from their wages in violation of the orders passed by the Martial Law authority.
3. With regard to the three Security Darwans mentioned in Schedule C the case of the first party is that these Darwans were dismissed during the period of Lock-out or Strike. But in pursuance of the Memorandum of Settlement between the parties dated 2-3-1970 these workers are entitled to re- instatement to their former employment,-but the second party did not re-instate these workers in violation of the agreement. So the first party wants re-instatement of these workers with back wages.
4. The second parties made appearance and opposed the case. The case of the second parties bereft of all details may be stated as follows The Martial Law Authority of Kushtia Zone was pleased to grant 25 per cent. as ad hoc relief to the workers of the second parties vide ML/12/A, dated 15-4-1969 marked as Annexure 'A'. By subsequent order the Martial Law Authority gave a clarification of the previous order and directed that the ad hoc relief would be applicable to those employees whose salary did not exceed Rs. 150 vide ML/12/A, dated 29th April 1969. In view of the aforesaid order the employees mentioned in Schedule are not entitled to get any ad hoc relief at 25 per cent. of the pay. With regard to the employees mentioned in Schedule `B' the case of the second parties is that in pursuance of the order passed by the Martial Law Authority these workers were granted ad hoc relief at 25 per cent with effect from 1st of April 1919. The ad hoc relief so allowed by the Martial Law Authority and granted by the second parties to these workers was temporary one and in view of the order of the Martial Law Authority this ad hoc relief was effective till such time as the Minimum Wages Board decided the matter. So since the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1969 was promulgated the relief so granted ceased to exist with effect from 1-7-1969 and accordingly the second parties stopped the ad hoc relief. There was therefore no violation of the Martial Law Order. Hence the claims of the first party in respect of these workers are not maintainable under the law.
5. With regard to the dismissal of the three Security Darwans mentioned in Schedule 'C' to the - petition the case of the second parties is that these Darwans were dismissed on the ground of misconduct after proper charge-sheet and not on the ground of any strike or lock-out.
6. Consequently there had been do violation of the agreement dated 2-3-1970, The last contention of the second parties is that the relief sought for by the first party under sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and under section 8 of the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1969 along with the appli--cation under section 34 is not maintainable under the law inasmuch as sections 54 and 55 of the I. R. O. and section S of the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1969 are penal sections and cannot be combined with an application under section 34 of the 1. R. O., 1969.
7. At the very outset I like to point out that the relief prayed for under sections 54 and 55 of the I. R. O. and section 8 of the Minimum Wages (Fixation) Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter called as Minimum Wages Ordinance, cannot be entertained in the present case inasmuch as the aforesaid section are penal sections and cannot be combined with an application under section 34 of the L-R.O., 1969. The learned lawyer appearing for the first patty was conscious of the above fact A and accordingly he did not press the reliefs claimed under the aforesaid sections. So the prayer in respect of the relief claimed under sections 54 and 55 of the I. R. O. and under section 8 of the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1969 is rejected as not maintainable and not pressed.
8. Let us now consider if the claim in respect of 11 of the workers mentioned in Schedule `A' to the petition is at all maintainable under the law. The claim appears to have been passed on so-called agreement arrived at between the workers and the Management of the Renwick Company Limited, copy of which was produced by the second party as Annexure 'A' to the written statement and marked Exh. `A' on admission. This was issued from the Martial Law Head--quarters, Kushtia by the Deputy Sub-Martial Law Administrator vide ML/12/A, dated 15th April 1959. It appears on a perusal of this order marked Exh. A that it was under the persuasion of the Martial Law Authority both the parties came to an agreement which was embodied in the order. There is nothing in the order itself that both the parties signed the same. An agreement to be valid must be signed by both the parties. In such circumstances this cannot be treated as an agreement under the law. It may be treated at best an order passed by the Martial Law Authority on 8 the representations made before it by both the parties con--cerned. Subsequent clarification made by the Martial Law Authority regarding paragraph 2 of the aforesaid order will strengthen the view that the so-called agreement marked Exh. A is nothing but an order of the Martial Law Authority. The clarification marked Exh. A (1) was sought for by the second party Management regarding paragraph 2 of the order marked Exh. A. Accordingly clarification was given by the Martial Law Authority to the effect that 25 per cent. Interim relief would be given to those employees whose salary did not exceed Rs.
150. This clarification therefore goes to show that the so-called agreement; cannot be called as an Agreement under the Law and that it was nothing but an order pissed by the Martial Law Authority.
9. The order of the Martial Law Authority has the force of law under the Martial Law Regulations and it is binding between the parties concerned. The first party, as we have seen already, stands on paragraph 2 of the order in question. According to this neither paragraph 25 nor cent. Interim relief is to be given to all employees till the Wages Board decides the minimum wages. Hence, 25 per cent. Increase as interim relief has been claimed for the workers mentioned in Schedule A. The contention of the second party on the point is that in view of the clarifica--tion made by the Martial Law Authority as per Exh. A(1) on 29th of April 1969, Interim Relief at 25 % is available only to those employees whose salary does not exceed Rs.
150. Accordingly it has been urged by the second party that all the employees concerned admittedly had their wages in excess of Rs. 150 per month and accordingly they are not entitled to claim the interim relief at 25 Y. inasmuch as the order in question is not applicable to them. This very case that has been made, out in the written statement submitted by the second parties. In order to meet this contention the learned lawyer of the first party contends that the first party did not receive any such clarification and accordingly this very order regarding the clarification of paragraph 2 of the original order has been challenged. There is of course nothing to show that the first party receives such an order. But this does not mean to take away .the value of the order by which the clarification was made by the Martial Law Authority It is too much to say on the part of the first party that such an order is a fabricated one created by the second parties. Accordingly I must hold that the Martial Law Authority made this clarification and that this must be treated as a genuine one. So in view of the clarification made as per the order dated 29th April 1969 marked Exh. A (a), the employees mentioned in Schedule A of the petition are riot entitled to any interim relief at 25 % of their pay. Before parting with this point regarding the claim of the aforesaid employees it must be noted that the first party claimed the interim relief from February 1969 which however cannot be allowed even if the order of the Martial Law Authority is applicable to them. The order was passed on 15th April, 1969. So there is nothing in the order that it will have any retrospective effect from February 1969. At best it may be effective from the date the order was passed. So the claim appears to be an exaggerated one. This question however does not arise now m view of my decision that these employees mentioned in Schedule A are not entitled to get any benefit of paragraph 2 of the order marked Exh. A. So the claim in respect of the 11 workers mentioned in Schedule A does not deserve any consideration and it must be rejected.
10. Now with regard to the 22 workers mentioned in Schedule B the contention of the first party is that in pursuance of the order of the Martial Law Authority these workers are entitled to 25 % increase in their pay as Interim Relief. But with the introduction of the Minimum Wages Ordinance that is from 1st of July 1969 the second party stopped the payment of interim relief. Accordingly the first party has claimed the aforesaid interim relief at 25 % of the pay with effect from 1st of July 1969. To meet this contention of the first party, the second party that in view of paragraph 2 of the order marked Exh has alleged it. A the ad hoc relief was to remain effective till such time as the Minimum Wages Ordinance fixes the minimum wages and that it ceases to exist since the date the Minimum Wages Ordinance came into force that is, first of July 1969. The second party also points out that the interim relief in respect of the workers concerned at 25 % was given effect from 1st of April 1969 and that this was discontinued later on since the Minimum Wages Ordinance came into force. It has therefore been urged by the second party that the claim of the first party on the point is not sustainable under the law. I may point out here that paragraph 2 of the order marked Exh. A provides the grant of 25% interim relief to all employees till Wages Board decides the case of Minimum Wages. This paragraph has not been happily worded. The Minimum Wages Ordinance is applicable to unskilled workers employed in any establishment or in any tea garden where more than 50 workers are employed. It is not in dispute that the second party establishment has got more than 50 workers in their muster roll. So the question of the fixation of wages by the Minimum Wages Board does not arise. The second party in their written statement has mentioned clearly in paragraphs 3 and 5 that in pursuance of the order the interim relief referred to in the paragraph 2 of the Martial Law Order was to remain effective till the decision regarding the wages structure is arrived at by the Minimum Wages Ordinance. The real interpretation of the aforesaid paragraph of the order, as it appears to me, is that the interim relief will remain effective till the Minimum Wages Ordinance comes into force and that it will cease to exist as soon as the minimum wage is fixed under the Ordinance. So the first party cannot claim legally interim relief at 25 % of the pay of the workers concerned on the basis of the order of the Martial Law Authority after the 1st of July 1969. In this connection I like to refer to paragraph 2 of the agreement dated 2-3-1970 marked Exh.
1. In this agreement both the parties agreed that the dispute in question should be referred to Government of East Pakistan for decision. Accordingly it has been pointed out by the second party that the matter was referred to Government, of East Pakistan by the Martial Law Authority as per letter bearing No. ML/194/13/G, dated 16 June 1970, marked Exh, A. (2). No decision of the Government appears to have been arrived at from the Government as yet. So in view of the-aforesaid agree-- ment the first party is also not entitled to lay the claim till the matter is decided by the Government.
11. It may be noted here that the Minimum Wages as fixed under the Ordinance is Rs. 115 in case of the workers of the area in question as this was not an Industrial Area. But in no case the wages of a worker should be less than- what he used to get before the introduction of the Minimum Wages Ordinance. This however does not include the interim relief granted, in pursuance of the order of the Martial Law Authority because this interim relief was granted subject to the fixation of the Minimum Wages under the Minimum Wages Ordinance. I am therefore inclined to accept the contention of the second party, that the interim relief that was granted under the Martial Law Order was a temporary one and that it was effective only up to the date the Minimum Wages Ordinance came into force. This interim relief therefore ceases to. exist with the promulgation and enforcement of the Minimum Wages Ordinance. The workers mentioned in Schedule B are therefore not entitled to get the benefits of interim relief that is 25 % increase in the pay scale after the 1st of July 1969. The claim of the first party in respect of the workers mentioned in Schedule B therefore must be dismissed.
12. Let us now turn to the cases of 3 Security Darwans men--tioned in Schedule C to the petition, they- are Waizuddin, Mumtazuddin and Shahdat Hussain. The case of the first party is that these 3 Darwans were dismissed during the period of strike from 9-1-1970 to 21-8-1970 and Lock-out from 21-1-1970 to 2-3-1970. Referring to sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph VII of the agreement dated 2- 3-1970 marked Exh. 1, the first party contends that these dismissed Darwans should be re-instated with effect from the date of their dismissal. Accordingly re-instatement has been claimed with back wages in respect of these 3 Darwans. Of the aforesaid 3 Darwans, I take the case of Shahdat Hussain first. The date of dismissal of this Darwan has been given by the petitioner in Schedule C is 12-1-1970. The second party contends that the date of dismissal in respect of this Darwan Shahdat Hussain was 19 days before the strike period and as such his case is not covered by the agreement referred to. The mistake regarding the date of dismissal of this Darwan has been admitted by the learned lawyer appearing for the first party. It has been said by him that this Darwan has been dismissed 19 days before the strike period. So, the agreement referred to does not apply so far thisth Darwan i9 concerned. His, dismissal, therefore, must stand good. With regard to the other 2 Darwans there is no dispute that they were dismissed during the strike period. The second parties have not disputed the date -of their dismissal is given in Schedule. The second parties however contends that these 2 Darwans were dismissed for misconduct after they had been duly charge- sheeted and that they were not dismissed on the ground of strike. Accordingly it has been urged that these Darwans are not entitled to get any benefits of the agreement. I am unable to accept the contention of the second parties. The relevant portion of the agreement enjoins that all the workers dismissed during the period of strike and lock-out will be re-instated with effect from the date of their dismissal. No discrimination has been made in the terms of the agreement regarding. the. Dismissal of any worker made during the period of strike or loci-out on the grounds other than strike and lock-out. So in my opinion any case of dismissal be it, on the ground of independent misconduct not connected with the strike or lock-out or otherwise must be covered by the terms of the agreement provided the dismissal was made during the strike or lock-out period. We have seen already that there is no dispute that these two Darwans were dismissed during strike or lock- out period. So in pursuance of the terms of the agreement marked Exh. I these two Darwans must be re-instated with effect from the date of their dismissal and accordingly they must be paid the back wages. The case of the first party in respect of these two Darwans must be allowed.
13. In the result it is ORDERED That the case be allowed in part on contest but without costs. The claim of the first party in respect of the workers mentioned in Schedules A and B to the petition is hereby rejected.
14. The two Darwans namely Waizuddin and Mumtazuddin as mentioned in Schedule C to the petition be re-instated with effect from the date of their dismissal with back wages. The second parties are directed to re-instate the aforesaid two Darwans and to pay their back wages from the date of their dismissal till the data of re-instatement within 30 days from this date.
15. The dismissal in respect of Darwan Shahdat Hussain must stand good and he is not entitled to re- instatement or any other relief whatsoever.
16. I have consulted with and considered the written opinion of both the members while giving the above decision.
17. Two copies of this judgment are forwarded to the Provincial Government for publication in the official Gazette.