DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, I at Karachi, dated 31-7-1989.
2. The brief facts of the case are, that the respondents were originally employees of the WAPDA, who were sent on deputation to the appellants. In 1985 the establishment of the appellants was winded up and the respondents were repatriated back to WAPDA. Admittedly under the decision of the Government the leave salary and pension contributions in respect of the respondents were payable by the appellants. The respondents, therefore, filed an application before the learned Labour Court claiming the payment of leave salary and pension contribution whereas according to the appellants, which fact is not disputed, they have sent those contributions to the WAPDA for payment to the respondents. However, the learned Labour Court allowed the application of the respondents for payment of the above benefits directly to the respondents.
3. I have heard Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative for the respondent. Mr. Lodhi states that respondents Nos. 2 to 15 have not contacted him and, therefore, he has no instructions regarding them and remains absent with regard to these respondents. In the present Appeal he, however, presses the case of respondent No, 1, as according to him, he is neither accepted by the WAPDA nor by the MCPL as their employee and he has filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court No,1 against both the establishments.
4. There appears to be no dispute about the facts. Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan admits that inadvertently a telex was sent by the appellants to `WAPDA' that respondent No,1 was not their employee and subsequently they rectified this mistake by another telex. However, the respondent No, 1 still remains unemployed as he is not being accepted by both of them as their employee. The terms of the respondents, on their deputation to the WAPDA were settled by letter, dated 11-7-1978 (Annexure 'B'). Clause (e) of the decisions under this letter is relevant which is reproduced as under:- "(e) In respect of the persons who opt to remain WAPDA employees it was decided that WAPDA will have the right to call them back at any time it chooses. Again the MCPL of the employees concerned will not seek repatriation to WAPDA, unless, the latter agrees and that MCPL shall pay to WAPDA contribution in respect of the leave salary and pension contributions and for Welfare Fund at the Government rates."
5. Annexure 'C' is agreement regarding terms and conditions of repatriation of WAPDA employees working with MCPL, which is dated 5-3-1985. Clause (v) of this Annexure is also relevant, which is also reproduced as under:- "(v) Pension and leave salary contributions of employees, working on deputation with MCPL upto the date of their repatriation, will be paid by MCPL, on the date of their repatriation. Their R.P. Fund accumulations will also be handed over on that date, in accordance with the detailed instructions to be issued by Manager Finance concerned."
If these two clauses are read together, it leaves no doubt that the amount of the pension and leave salary was to be paid by the appellant to WAPDA on repatriation of WAPDA employees, which the WAPDA would pay to the C respondents in accordance with their Service Rules. Respondents Nos. 2 to 15 are admittedly repatriated to WAPDA and therefore with regard to their case the appeal of the appellant is allowed.
6. Mr. Qamar Zaman, who is 'Personal Officer' of the appellant and is assisting Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan, admits that on termination of some of those employees of the MCPL, who were not repatriated to WAPDA they were paid some amount in lump sum as golden hand shake. As respondent No, 1 is not accepted by WAPDA as their employee mainly due to telax of the appellant which according to them was sent inadvertently, therefore, in my opinion, it would be unfair to deprive the respondent No,1 of the benefits accruing to him under the Rules. The appeal of the appellants with respect to respondent No,1 is dismissed.
7. However, the impugned order is modified that if respondent No, 1 succeeds in his petition before the learned Labour Court with regard to employment either by the `MCPL' or `WAPDA', the amount which may be paid, to him under the order of the learned Labour Court and this Tribunal would be repaid by him back to the Organization which employs him, so that the employee be paid back to him by that Organization in accordance with the Service Rule. The observations made in this 'decision' will not prejudice the case of either parties now pending before the Labour Court No,I.
Appeal party allowed.