DECISION This is an appeal against an order dated 21st of January 1974, given by the Sind Labour Court No. I, whereby the learned Court ordered the re-instatement of one Mohammad Altaf with back benefits.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these. The services of Mohammad Altaf were terminated by a letter dated the 6th of May 1972, which Mohammad Altaf received on the 9th of May 1972, as would appear from the letter dated the 6th of May 1972. The services of the respondent were terminated because there was no work and also because he was only an apprentice.
2. I have heard the arguments of the representatives of the parties on the question if Mohammad Altaf was an apprentice or not. I have come to the conclusion that Mohammed Altaf is not an apprentice for the reasons which the learned Court has given in his award. It is not necessary to repeat those grounds. They are, in my view, substantial grounds.
3. Mr. Khalid Jamil, the learned Advocate for the appellant stated that Mohammad Altaf having accepted tile legal dues he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. In this connection he trade a reference to Annexure 'D' filed by the respondent which is at page 55 of the record of the Labour Court. It would appear from toe perusal of the letter that it is a receipt showing that an amount of its. 144 is being received in full and final settlement. This letter bears the signature of the worker Altaf and dated 5th of July 1972. Under the date it is written at 3-00 p.m. It follows that the worker knew the contents of the letter dated the 5th of July 1972, he, therefore, could not have been so foolish as to receive the payment on 14th of July 1972; as would appear, from the Certificate of the Manager of the Muslim Commercial Bank, which is at page 33 of the lower Courts record and which runs as under:- "This is to certify that a bearer Clieque No. 788867 issued by Messrs Standard Printing Press on 30th June 1972, in favour of Mr. Mohammed Altaf Khan for Rs. 144 (Rupees one hundred forty-four only) was presented to us for cash payment on 14th July 1972, and was duly honoured." and thereby forego his claim. I would hold that Mohammed Altaf cannot be said to have received the payment of Rs. 144 in full and final settlement of his claim so as not to be said to be a person aggrieved.
4. In the second place Mr. Khalid Jamil contended that the application was not maintainable as the respondent-Trade Union was not entitled to registration within the meaning of section 7(1)(d) of the Ordinance. It reads as under: "7(1) A Trade Union shall not be entitled to registration under this Ordinance unless the constitution thereof provides for the following matters, namely: (a)------------------------------------------.. . . ------------------------------------ (b)------------------..---------------------------------------------------------------.
(c)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------...
(d) the number of persons forming the executive which shall not exceed the prescribed limits and shall include not less than seventy-five percent from amongst the workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment or establishments or the industry from which the Trade Union has been formed."
Mr. Khalid Jamil, the learned Advocate for the respondent contended that the learned Court did not interpret the words "Actually engaged" correctly. I do not think so, as the words "Actually engaged" has been used in contrast to an outsider, and not a person dismissed or discharged or retrenched as mentioned in the definition of Worker in section 2(xxviii) of the Ordinance, I accept the interpretation given by the learned Court.
5. For the reasons given above the appeal is partly accepted and the Award of the learned Court is modified to this extent only that the worker would be entitled to get only six months' wages as back benefits. Under section 25-A of the Ordinance as it stood prior to its amendment the Award had to be given within twenty days. If the case remained pending for about a year and a half, the appellant should not be penalised for the same. On the other band the worker should also not suffer. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case as to what compensation should be allowed In this case I consider six months' wages to be sufficient to compensate the worker. The Award, with this modification, is maintained.