DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 13-5-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1 at Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The facts of this appeal, in brief, are that the appellant was admittedly a workman employed with the respondents since 1978. It is alleged by him that on 27-12-1984, he was not allowed to enter the Mills premises and on 12-1-1985, he was informed that he would not be allowed to resume duties. He contended that his termination of service was illegal and in violation of Standing Order
12. He served grievance notice upon the respondents on 13-1-1985 and subsequently filed grievance petition which was dismissed by the impugned order. The respondents resisted the grievance petition claiming that due to accumulation of large quantity of finished products and lack of local as well as foreign demand and orders resulted in severe financial crises, therefore, they had reorganized the organization and cut the production and reduced the working force. It is contended that on 15-11-1984, services of 169 junior most workers were terminated including the services of the present appellant. The C.B.A. Workers Union of the respondents took up the matter of retrenchment with the Directorate of Labour and after series of meetings held before the Director Labour, a memorandum of agreement was signed by the management and the United Carpets Workers Union on 4-11-1984 and under the said agreement, the order of retrenchment was withdrawn and all 169 workers were reinstated. Under the agreement, the matter was referred to arbitration and Mr. Shahabuddin Qureshi, Joint Director Labour was appointed as Arbitrator. Parties reached to an agreement on 24-11-1984 under which the respondents could retrench 169 workers on payment of ex gratia amount besides the legal dues to each worker. The award was given by the arbitrator in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties on 26-12-1984. In terms of the agreement/award, the respondent's retrenched 169 workers including the appellant on 27-12- 1984, and apart from the legal dues, the appellant was also paid Rs,2,000 as ex gratia payment in full and final settlement of his accounts. He was paid in toto an amount of Rs,6,662.25. The respondents raised further objection that after obtaining legal dues, the appellant ceased to be an aggrieved worker and, therefore, he could not file any grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
3. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Zamirul Hassan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondents.
4. The first point for determination is as to whether the payment of legal dues and ex gratia amount of Rs,2,000 was made to the appellant. The appellant in his application as well as in his deposition had denied the receipt of this amount. The respondents had produced their Accountant, Mr. Rustom M. Billimoria to prove the payment. It is contended by Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned counsel for the appellant that even this Mr. Billimoria had admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant was not personally known to him and, therefore, his statement has no evidentiary value.
The evidence of this witness has to be read in full and not in isolation. No doubt he has stated that the appellant was not personally known to him, but, he had stated in his affidavit-in-evidence that before making payment of salary/wages to the workers, he first checked the identity cards and after verifying their names, numbers and photos took their signatures/thumb-impression on the payment sheets and thereafter handed over the money of their salaries/wages and other dues to them. He further stated that he checked his identity card and photo before making payment to the appellant and thereafter took the signature of the appellant on the payment sheet. He stated that personally he paid him his salary for the month of December, 1984, notice pay, gratuity, bonus and Rs,2,000 as ex gratia payment. He has denied the suggestion that the appellant was not amongst those retrenched workers who had been paid their legal dues. The payment sheets have been produced as Exhs. R/8 to R/8-E. Apart from the evidence of the witness Billimoria, who states that the appellant had signed the payment sheet in his presence, there is observation of the learned Labour Court, who had compared the signatures of the appellant with his signatures on the payment sheets under Article 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat and came to the conclusion that the signatures were same and similar and there could hardly be any doubt regarding the collection of his dues by the appellant along with other retrenched workers. In view of this evidence and findings of the learned Labour Court, the mere denial of the appellant does not have much value. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the learned Labour Court that the appellant had received his legal dues as well as ex gratia payment of Rs,2,000.
5. The respondents contend that on having received his dues, the appellant was no more an aggrieved person so as to bring his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969. In support they have relied upon 1975 PLC 744, 1981 PLC 670. The appellant, however, relied upon a case reported in PLD 1977 Lah. 71 at page 74, wherein it is observed as under:- "It is disputed whether satisfaction recorded by the respondent was total, complete or only partial and incomplete. This being a question of fact will not be gone into and even if a workman receives what is due to him, he can still lay a claim for what was die to hint but has not been paid. In other words, part acceptance of the entitlement does not imply surrender or abandonment of that part which has not been received."
' In the reported case, the workman was alleged to have been paid only his legal dues and there was no ex gratia payment as a consequence of an agreement between the employer and the Workers Union. Similar view was taken in the case, reported in 1975 PLC 400. But again the instant case can be distinguished from the reported case for the aforementioned reasons.
6. It is further submitted by the respondents that this ex gratia payment of Rs,2,000, apart from other legal dues was made to the appellant as a consequence of an award made by the arbitrator as a result of compromise entered into between the respondents and the workers union of which the appellant was a member. The appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that there were two worker Unions in the respondents mills, one is known as United Carpet Workers Union and the other is United Workers Woollen Union. He has admitted that he is member of United Carpet Workers Union. The respondents have produced the agreement Exh. R-3 between the respondents and the United Carpet Workers Union and the award given in terms of the agreement as Exh. R-4.
Under para. 2(e) of this Agreement, 50 workers were to be paid the legal dues with one month's notice pay and an amount of Rs,2,000 as ex gratia payment. The appellant states in his cross- examination that he did not know of this settlement. He has not denied that any such settlement was arrived at. In view of evidence on record, there is no doubt that such settlement was arrived at between the Workers' Union and the respondents which was made the basis of an award by the arbitrator.
7. Thus, the evidence on record clearly shows that apart from the legal dues, the appellant has further received an amount of Rs,2,000 as ex gratia payment under the said settlement. The respondents had relied upon 1975 PLC 205, wherein this Tribunal has held that the intention of the legislature appears to be that when a settlement had been arrived at between the parties, the terms of the settlement must remain binding on the parties for sufficiently long period, so that the management and the workers are able to work in amity and peace. Similar view was taken in the case, reported in 1974 PLC Note 108 at p. 58 and 1975 PLC 564. In 1974 PLC 64, this Tribunal has held that a settlement arrived at between employer and Collective Bargaining Agent was binding on all workmen. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Constitutional Petition No. D-1014 of 1988, wherein Division Bench of High Court of Sind has observed that the workers were entitled to the benefits in view of the settlement entered into between the management and the C.BA. Union.
8. Furthermore, I find that the appellant had not disclosed full facts in his grievance petition wherein he does not mention earlier order of his termination. In his cross-examination, however, he has admitted that his services were terminated on 15-11-1984 along with 169 other workers. He has denied that the termination order was withdrawn on 24-11-1984, but, at the same time he has claimed to have worked up to 27-12-1984. Such conflicting statement has made his evidence doubtful. He denied the receipt of the termination letter, but, has admitted that the address shown in the letter of termination was correct. In all 169 workers had been retrenched and the payment sheets show payments to all the workers. None of the other workers had filed any grievance petition. It does not appeal to reason that the respondents would forgo the payment sheets only for the purpose of inclusion of the appellant's name.
9. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that the appellant has not only received his legal dues, but, has also received ex gratia payment of Rs,2,000 in pursuance of the agreement arrived at between the management and the Workers' Union. As such, he could not have filed the grievance petition as he was no more an aggrieved person. The grievance petition has been rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court and I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.