The employer is the petitioner. The facts of the case find a mention in the order of the Court in Writ Petition No.3054 of 1976 PLJ 1980 Lah. 271. They need not be reproduced. Another determi--nation and adjudication has taken place by the Appellate Tribunal on 15-2-1978, whereby the employer has been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,960,083, which has been recoverable as arrears of land revenue. This has been done on a petition under section 51(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with rule 79 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973, on failure of the employer to obey the order of the Tribunal announced on 18-12-1976 directing the reinstatement of the employees and payment of back wages to them. The adjudication is being challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:-
(1) Section 51 was not available at all for determining the entitlement of the respondent-employees for wages or other remuneration after 18-12-1976, the date of the earlier order. At the most the quantification of the wages in terms of money could take place upto that time.
(2) Under the orders of reinstatement passed on 18-12-1976 only back wages had to be paid to the employees on reinstatement and on no definition of the word "wages" could, the leave entitlement and the statutory bonus be allowed to them.
(3) The respondent-employees were at fault in not reporting for duty on getting the reinstatement order and the employer could not be saddled with their wages particularly so when one of them had sought and obtained employment abroad.
(4) The only jurisdiction and authority that the Appellate Tribunal had in the matter was one of computing the wages if it involved benefits other than cash upto 18-12-1976 and to proceed in contempt under section 25-A subsection (8) for disobedience of the orders.
2. There are in fact two questions of law which arise out of the proceedings in this Court. The first is whether it was in this particular case within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court under section 51 subsection (2) to determine the future entitlement of the employees arising out of the order made on 18-12-1976 with regard to their reinstatement and back wages. Secondly, what could be termed as wages in the given case.
3. Section 51 is reproduced hereunder in extenso: "51. Recovery of money due from an employer under a settlement or award.--(1) Any money due from an employer under a settlement, or under an award or decision of the arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand if, upon the application of the person entitled to the money, the Labour Court, so directs.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, under a settlement or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal, which is capable or being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit shall be computed may, subject to the rules made under this Ordinance, be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection
(1) and paid to the workman concerned within a specified date."
The benefit granted and mentioned in subsection (2) of section 51 is something other than the cash emoluments. The exercise required to be undertaken under this subsection is to convert in cash such a benefit. If it is already cash it will not be susceptible of such alit exercise in computation.
4. In the present case the order which was brought before the Appellate Tribunal for consideration had two elements. One directing reinstatement and the other payment of back wages. If the order directing reinstatement remained uncomplied with, it had to be converted into terms of money as it could be so converted and it has been in fact so converted. The wages if they included elements other than cash as per example leave entitlement etc. Then they had to be, converted into cash. In either case, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Appellate Tribunal was not misconceived. The. Order in respect of which this exercise was undertaken had in the domain of past the back wages and in the domain of future responsibilities arising out of the reinstatement of the employees. The back wages could be determined for the period before 18-12-1976 but the effect of non-reinstatement had to be determined, converted in terms of money after 18-l12-1976 and made the responsibility of the employer. It has been so done. This could be done. There is no jurisdiction defect. The proceedings were properly conducted and suffer from no infirmity on that score.
5. As regards, the scope of wages and the inclusion and the exclusion therefrom it is admitted that the employees were not governed by the Payment of Wages Act, but as it was an employee and employer dispute and the expression "wages" had been mentioned in the order of the Appellate Tribunal itself, it was competent for that authority to determine its scope and meaning. The Labour Court adopted broadly the definition given in the Payment of Wages Act as there was none else to go by.
The very tenor of the reinstatement order would indicate that though reinstatement with back wages was ordered it had the effect of granting them the wages in the sense of back benefits. In this view of the matter the leave entitlement and the statutory bonus cannot be said to be not a part of the wages.
6. The other question as to whether the employees reported for the duty or not and who was at fault was a question of fact and has been dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal. This Court is not competent in constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with such a finding of fact.
7. I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed with costs. A certain amount has been deposited (Rs.78350/62) with the Registrar as the admitted amount. It will be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of satisfying the claim and disbursement in terms of its adjudication.
M. Y. H./S-46/Lb.