' The revision captioned above seeks to give information that the order dated, 22nd October, 1983 passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, is illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. By means of a settlement dated 21st April, 1983 bonuses for the years 1982-83 were agreed to be paid on basic pay. Now the dispute between the parties is that according to the respondents, house rent and shift allowances are to be included in the pay while calculating bonus, whereas the petitioner wants to pay the bonus on basic pay only. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has decided that it has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties and this order has been said to be illegal. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to clause 15 of the settlement, no dispute except the interpretation of the settlement can arise. No doubt, no other demand or dispute can be raised but where the settlement is not implemented or wages are deducted or delayed, the workers can go to the competent forum to claim redress of the wrong. Since a dispute exists between the parties about payment of bonus, it had a right to go to the Court. If any wages are proved to have been deducted or its payment delayed, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction.
3. It has been further argued that the Authority has no jurisdiction to interpret the settlement and that only this tribunal has jurisdiction. Section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is clear.
If there is any difficulty or doubt, only then interpretation is to be made by the Tribunal. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has not said that it feels some difficulty rather it says that it has jurisdiction.
4. As a result, the revision is dismissed.