DECISION ' This is a suo motu revision application filed by the applicant against an order, dated 28-2-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, 1 at Karachi who had dismissed the application of the applicant under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, being not maintainable.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant claimed to have been employed in the respondent establishment. His services were dispensed with effect from 11-1-1985. It was further claimed by the applicant that on 1-1-1985, a settlement was arrived at between the C.B.A. Union and the respondent establishment to the effect that the workers employed in the respondent factory should be paid salaries at half rate for the months from June, 1984 till December, 1984 and payments of all legal dues on account of termination of their services would be paid to them in batches on the basis of one batch in one month commencing from January, 1985, vide clause 4 of the said Memorandum of Settlement. That, as the applicant had to his credit service of about 13 years and his last pay was Rs, 1,185 per month, therefore, he was to be paid his full dues by the end of July, 1985 according to the agreed terms for payment on the basis of batches, as there were about 250 workmen employed in the establishment. Further, the claim of the applicant was that after execution of the said Memorandum of Settlement, the respondent establishment sought permission under section 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance from the learned Labour Court to close down the factory vide order of the learned Labour Court, dated 6-2-1985 wherein it was clearly and specifically ordered that all the terms and conditions stated in the said Memorandum of Settlement had to be complied with by the parties, but, these dues were not paid to the applicant within the stipulated time. The applicant further claimed that as he was not paid his legal dues by the respondent establishment, therefore, a complaint under ,sections 54 and 55 of I.R.O.
1969, was filed before the Labour Court No, IV, Karachi, which was subsequently withdrawn by him, as he was made part payment of his legal dues, but, even after that he was not paid gratuity, so, he submitted an application under section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969 for its payment before the learned Labour Court No, IV, Karachi which was subsequently transferred to the learned Labour Court No, 1 at Karachi who had passed the impugned order dismissing the application as being not maintainable.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition raising legal objection to the maintainability of it on the grounds that as the applicant had also collected all his legal dues in full and final settlement which were deposited by the establishment before the learned Labour Court on 3-9- 1986, hence, under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969, he was no more an aggrieved worker and furthermore his complaint under sections 54 and 55 of I.R.O., 1969 for the same cause of action had also been dismissed by the learned Labour Court. The respondent establishment resisted the application of the applicant on further grounds that the applicant had neither served a grievance notice upon it nor his application was within time and that under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the applicant was not a workman, so, his application under section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969 was liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. M.M. Jeelani, the learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted on behalf of both the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that it is an admitted position that since the respondent establishment on account of its lawful closure and in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement, dated 1-1-1985 between the C.BA. Union and the management was not in a position to make payment of legal dues to all the workers immediately, therefore, this payment was agreed to be paid in batches. It is also an unchallenged fact on record that on 3-9-1986, vide pay order No, 193637, dated 28-8-1986, drawn on Habib Bank Ltd., Dockyard Road Branch, Karachi the applicant was paid a sum of Rs, 18,305.75 in full and final settlement of his dues before the learned Labour Court No, IV at Karachi. However, Mr. Farooq A.
Ghani, the learned representative for the respondent factory in support of his contention that after receipt of all his legal dues in full and final settlement the applicant was no longer an aggrieved person under the provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, has relied upon the cases reported in 1988 PLC 86 and 1974 PLC Note 146, at p.
79. After careful examination of these reported cases, I see much force in the arguments of Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, the learned representative for the respondent factory. On the other hand, Mr. M.M.
Jeelani, the learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the respondent was competent to maintain his application under section 51, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court and it was incorrect to dismiss it being not legally maintainable. In support of his arguments, Mr. Jeelani has referred me to the cases reported in 1987 PLC 601; 1987 PLC 650; 1986 SCM R 1330 and a recent Decision of this Tribunal in Application No, KAR-22/87, decided on 16-12-1987. I see no force in these contentions of Mr. M.M. Jeelani, the learned Advocate for the applicant. The facts and circumstances of these cases are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence, they are distinguishable. The present case is that the applicant had admitted to have received his legal dues in full and fmal settlement. There is also unchallenged position that the applicant was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme and this amount was also included in the legal dues which he had already received in full and final settlement. Further, the bare perusal of Standing Order 12 (6) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would show that where the employer has established a Provident Fund to which the workman is a contributor and the contribution of the employer is not less than the contribution made by the workman, no such gratuity, shall be payable for the period during which such Provident Fund has been in existence. There is nothing in rebuttal of this legal aspect of the case on behalf of the applicant.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would accordingly maintain the same. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. I would, therefore, dismiss the present application.