DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 13-10-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, Vth at Karachi, who had directed the Appellant Chamber of Commerce to make payments of bonus under Standing Order 10-C for the year 1984-85 to the respondents within 15 days.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the cases are that the respondents claimed to have been admittedly the workmen in the appellant establishment and that the appellant establishment had paid bonus under Standing Order 10-C for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the accounting year 1974-75 and it was shown as expenditure in the accounting year 1974-75. Therefore, it was not paid for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the appellant establishment had suffered loss in the year 1974-75. The respondents claimed that being aggrieved, they filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court who had held that the payment of bonus under Standing Order 10-C could not be charged as expenditure, as such the appellant establishment filed a Constitutional Petition No, 143 of 1976 before the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, who, by its order, dated 27-9-1978, has upheld the order of the learned Labour Court that the payment of Bonus under A Standing Order 10-C could not be charged as expenditure. Further, the claim of the respondents was that in spite of these authoritative pronouncements, the appellant establishment had charged the payments of bonus paid under Standing Order 10-C in the year 1983-84 as expenditure for the accounting year 1984- 85 and thereafter it has shown a loss of Rs, 4,88,430 in the balance-sheet ending 30-6-1985 and as such no bonus under Standing Order 10-C had been paid to the respondents for the year 1984-85.
The respondent further claimed that only of their legitimate right of bonus under Standing Order 10-C, to deprive the respondents the appellant establishment had prepared the account with mala fide intentions to show definite and while the correct picture was that the appellant establishment had earned net profits to the tune of Rs,3,41,479 only durir g the D year 1984-85, hence, petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A(4) and (10), I.R.O.
1969.
3. The appellant establishment had resisted the petition, firstly on the ground that it was time- barred and that it should have been filed under section 34, I.R.O. 1969 and not under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 and that no grievance notice was served upon them before filing the grievance petition and that it was not signed by each and every respondent. It was lastly claimed that the appellant establishment had sustained losses as per balance-sheet for the year ending 30-61985, hence, the respondents could not maintain their grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. The General Secretary of the respondent had filed his affidavit-inevidence, but, he was not cross-examined by the appellant establishment. No evidence was led on behalf of the appellant establishment. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Izzat Puri, the learned representative for the appellant establishment and Mr. Muhammad Anis, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that the present appeal before this Tribunal was not filed by the appellants themselves, but it was filed by Mr. Izzat Puri. The learned Advocate for the respondents raising his legal objection to the maintainability of the present appeal and thereby requesting this Tribunal to dismiss the appeal has relied upon a number of authorities of this Tribunal as well as the superior Courts on this legal aspect and in support of the contention, has referred me to the latest Decision of this Tribunal in Appeals Nos.
KAR-390, 391 and 398 of 1987, dated 3-12-1987. It is a settled and mandatory law that all the petitions before the Labour Court or the Labour Tribunal must be presented b the aggrieved persons, praying for adjudication of their grievances and not b their agent, authorised person, attorney representative or an Advocate. In view of this admitted legal position, I would hold that the present appeal is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6. As regards the merits of the case, in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Labour Court as well as the High Court, as referred to above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would uphold the same.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.