1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--Messrs Independent Newspaper Corporation Limited, Karachi, has filed the above petition to challenge the order of Implementation Tribunal, dated 24-4-1978, passed in connection with the implementation of Second Wage Board Award. At the hearing of above petition, learned counsel for the petitioner only challenged the directions of respondent No, 1, made in respect of payment of cost of living, Night Transport and Local Transport Allowances to employees of petitioner and the promotions of some of the employees of petitioner working at Karachi, Rawalpindi and Quetta. The above mentioned items have been dealt with in the impugned orders in a number of paragraphs and as such it will be convenient to reproduce here the prayer clause of the petition which is as follows:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to:-
(i) declare that the findings and directions contained in paragraphs 41, 43 to 47, 49 to 53, 55 to 58, 61, 62, 65 to 68, 74 to 78, 81 and 82 of the impugned order dated 24th April, 1978 are illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quash the impugned order to the extent of the said paragraph.
(ii) grant costs of the petition; as may be deemed proper under the circumstances of the case."
2. Mr. Mazharuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that respondent No, 1 had no jurisdiction to award cost of living allowance to the employees of the petitioner on the basis of the amendment introduced in section 3 of Cost of Living Act, 1973, by Act No, XLVIII of 1974 dated 10th September, 1974, as the same was not covered by the Second Wage Board Award. In this connection the learned counsel invited our attention to clause 2(6) of Chapter X of the award which defines cost of living for purposes of award as follows:-- "(vi) 'Cost of Living Allowance' means the monthly rate of relief granted under section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Ordinance No, XXII of 1973, and includes any increase thereon granted initially or on a subsequent occasion by the employer upto December 31, 1973, whether voluntarily or by mutual agreement."
3. It is an admitted position in the case that the award was signed on 8th June, 1974, and it came into effect on 1st July, 1974. It is also an admitted position that the cost of living allowance allowed by the Implementation Tribunal became payable to the employees under Act XLVII of 1974 which was promulgated on 10th September, 1974, and became effective from 1st July, 1974. It is true that in terms of the amending Act the cost of living allowance is payable to all the employees generally which also includes the employees of Newspaper Organisations but the point for determination before us is whether the Implementation Tribunal which was constituted for the purposes of overseeing the implementation of the award dated 8th June, 1974, had the jurisdiction to order the management to pay cost of living to the employees of the petitioner under Act XLVII of 1974. The definition of cost of living as given in Chapter 10 clause 2(6) of the award refers to the monthly rate of relief granted under section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Ordinance No, XXII of 1973 and includes any increase thereon granted initially or on a subsequent occasion by the employer upto 31-12-1973 whether voluntarily or by mutual agreement. In view of the fact that the functions of respondent No, 1 only required it to oversee the implementation of Second Wage Board Award, it possessed no general jurisdiction to order for payment of any amount by way of cost of living which may have become due and payable to employees of the petitioner under any subsequent legislation of the Government made after 31st December, 1973. We are therefore, of the view that any cost of living awarded to the employees generally by the amendment of Cost of Living Act would not be covered under the award though the employees may be entitled to such cost of living under the provisions of the Act. We accordingly, hold that to the extent the Tribunal awarded the cost of living to the employees of the petitioner on the basis of the amendments which were made on 10th September, 1974, the order was in excess of jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
4. The second objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in paragraphs 55 to 73 various employees of the petitioner have been directed to be promoted either from the date of the order or from a date prior to that, namely, from 1-7-1974, but the Second Wage Board Award does not deal with the question of promotion of any of the employees of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel appears to be correct. The contents of the Award do not show that there was any dispute before the Second Wage Board with regard to promotions of any of the employees of the Newspapers. Accordingly, the award neither mentions any dispute regarding promotion of any of the employees of Newspapers nor it contained any direction in that regard. Therefore, respondent No, 1, while directing promotions of certain employees of the petitioner, acted outside the scope of the Award. However, it is neither necessary nor possible to decide this controversy here. This issue now is of only academic interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted before us that all the employees about whom respondent No, 1 had directed for promotion, were promoted long ago and they are also not party to this petition. As the declaration sought by the petitioner in the case is likely to affect directly those persons who have been promoted, the relief claimed cannot be granted in the absence of affected persons. The third objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the direction of the Implementation Tribunal regarding payment of night transportation allowance to the employees. We have gone through the direction given by the Implementation Tribunal which appears at page 1166 of the Award and we do not find any irregularity therein. Respondent No, 1 has directed payment of night transportation allowance only to those persons who are entitled to it under paragraph 10(8) of the Award. We are, therefore, of the view that no exception could be taken to the order of Implementation Tribunal with regard to payment of night transportation allowance to the employees. The next item to which the learned counsel for the petitioner objected relates to payment of local transport allowance. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is, that the local transport allowance is payable only to employees on duty and not to those who are either absent or are on leave. The contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Implementation Tribunal on the ground that the benefit allowed to the employees under paragraph 10 of the Award under the heading 'Fringe Benefits' has been declared to be 'wage' under paragraph 11 of the Award. Local Travelling allowance has been allowed to the employees under paragraph 10(ix) as under:-- "(ix) Local travelling allowance.--Staff Reporters, Staff News Photographers, Staff Correspondents and all other employees of the same or higher grade whose duties involve local travelling in Metropolitan cities i,e, Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi shall be entitled to a conveyance allowance of Rs,300 p.m. each, while similar employees whose duties involve local travelling in Regional 'A' and Regional 'B' centres be respectively entitled to draw a conveyance allowance of Rs,200 and Rs,100 p.m. each."
5. It is quite apparent from the above paragraph that the local travelling allowance has not been allowed on the basis of actual expenditures but on ad hoc monthly basis. In paragraph 11 of the Award it is clearly stated that all benefits allowed to the employees under para. 10 of the award are declared to be wages. Learned Tribunal has dealt with this question at length in paragraph 47 of the Award and has reached the conclusion that as the benefits under paragraph 10(ix) have been declared as wages as defined in section 2(h) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)
6. Act, 1973, the employees could not be deprived of the same on the ground of absence from duty or on account of leave. The reasoning given by the Tribunal appears to be correct and needs no interference. We, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the local travelling allowance allowed under paragraph 10(ix) of the Award, under the head 'Fringe Benefits' was only admissible to those employees who actually worked and were neither on leave nor absent from duty.
7. The petition is allowed only to the extent stated above but there will be no order as to costs.