' The revision captioned above emerges from the decision dated 2-4-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, whereby the order of the 'Authority dated 2-11-1986 was upheld.
2.
13.50 per cent relief allowed under section 6 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act was adjusted towards the benefits allowed under a settlement of 1984 by the respondent No.
1. The five petitioners treating it as deduction of wages brought five separate petitions under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority. The petitions were rejected on the sole ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction.
3. The facts are that a settlement was arrived at between the C.BA. And the respondent in March, 1984 which was given effect to from July, 1983. Proviso to section 6 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act says that the benefits allowed on account of rise in the cost of living under a settlement announced and given effect to on or after 1-1-1984 shall be a set-off. The case of the petitioners is that although the settlement of 1984 was signed after 1-1-1984 but since it was given effect to from 1-7-1983, the benefits allowed by the same could not be claimed as set off in 13.50 per cent allowed by subsection (6) of section 3 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1985. The C.BA. And the management entered into another settlement in 1985, according to which, it was agreed that the benefits allowed on account of the rise in the cost of living by the settlement of 1984 would be claimed as set-off towards the increase allowed under subsection (6) of section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act. The petitioners' case is that the settlement of 1985 is collusive with the management and that it could not affect the right granted already. The Authority and the learned lower Appellate Court have not given finding on the merits of the case but have said that the authority has no jurisdiction. The plea taken by the respondent before the Authority was that the specified authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 regulated the wages on the basis of the settlement of 1985, therefore, such an order could not be challenged before the authority. This plea found favour with the learned Authority and the learned lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that subsection (6) of section 3 authorizes the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act in the matter, therefore, the Authority has wrongly held that it has no jurisdiction. There is nothing in subsection (6) which may have authorized the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to interfere. Even if there is any such provision which may have been misquoted by the learned counsel, the question is ti at since the specified authority, which is the National Industrial Relations Commission, has regulated the wages on the basis of the settlement of 1985, the Authority has no jurisdiction. Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act bars the application of every law. It reads as under:- "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 or any other law."
4. It has also been argued that regulation of wages does not include adjudication and since the specified authority had given decision on the point that by virtue of the settlement of 1985 the benefits allowed by the settlement of 1984 on account of rise in the cost of living, can be a setoff, the specified authority acted beyond its jurisdiction. Such a legal question may be raised before competent forum but could not be raised before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
Without getting the order of the specified authority set aside, the petitioners could not go to the Authority with a plea that their wages had been deducted. The finding mentioned above was recorded by the specified authority not in the petition brought by the respondents but in a miscellaneous petition given by the petitioners who were otherwise not party before the specified authority. So far as the respondent and the C.B.A. Is concerned, the specified authority passed only an order of regulation of wages. Whether it was proper or improper or an order without jurisdiction, only a competent authority could say so but not the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
The learned Courts below, therefore, have rightly held that the Authority has no jurisdiction.
5. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed.