DECISION ' This is a revision application against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Bird Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 3-5-1990, whereby the amount of back benefits payable to the respondent was determined by the learned Labour Court.
2. I have heard Mr. Abrar Hassan, learned Counsel for the applicants and the respondent in persons and have also gone through the record and proceeding of the case.
3. The facts of the case are not disputed. The respondent had been removed from service by the applicants whereupon the respondent filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, who ordered that respondent be reinstated with full back benefits. The appeal filed by the applicants in the Tribunal was also dismissed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 3rd June, 1988.
Admittedly the respondents received Rs,26,087 either through this Tribunal or directly from the applicants in respect of his dues upto 30-6-1988. However the applicants had calculated these dues at the rate of Rs,850 as consolidated pay as per initial appointment order of respondent issued by the applicants. The respondent claimed his total amount of his dues to be Rs,48,568 calculating the salary, house rent and conveyance allowance out of which he deducted the amount received by him and claimed balance of Rs,22,481. As the exact amount of back benefits was not determined in the order of the learned Labour Court or this Tribunal, therefore, respondent filed application under sectiott51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. Only objection raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to determine the amount. He has relied upon the unreported decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in the case of the Karachi Club v. Muhammad Farooq in C.P.No, D-552 of 1981. Their Lordships have observed:- "It appears from the text of section 51 reproduced above that it envisages recovery of any money due from an employer under the settlement, or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand, but this section does not provide for determination of any dues claimed against employer."
5. Their Lordships held that amount claimed by the respondent in that case was not money due and therefore could not have been recovered under section 51 of the Ordinance. With due respect, it appears that the import of subsection (2) was either not brought to the notice of their Lordships or it escaped the notice of their Lordships. It will be pertinent to reproduce section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which reads as under:- "51.. Recovery of money due from an employer under a settlement or award.--(1) Any money due from an employer under a settlement, or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand if upon the application of the person entitled to the money, the Labour Court, so directs.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, under a settlement or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit shall be computed may subject to the rules made under this Ordinance, be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection
(1) and paid to the workman concerned within a specific date."
6. From the reading of the text, it will he seen that if the amount is settled or determined it could be recovered under subsection (1). However; if the amount is not settled, but the back benefits which the workman is entitled to receive under an award or decision of the Labour Court or Tribunal are capable of being computed in terms of money, the Labour Court is empowered to compute and to determine the amount under subsection (2). After the amount is determined by the Labour Court under subsection (2), it becomes recoverable in the manner provided under subsection (1) of section 51 of the LR.O., 1969.
7. The next contention of Mr. Abrar Hassan is that the respondent should have approached the Tribunal constituted under section 12-A of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973. Under section 13(4) of the same Act, the Tribunal is empowered to issue directions which a Labour Court has under subsection (1) of section 51 of the Ordinance. This provision however does not take away the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The main powers of the Tribunal are provided in subsection (1) of section 13, which empowers the Tribunal to try an offence punishable under section 55 of the Ordinance, if the offence relates to failures to implement any decision of the Board. It may be pointed that under this Act, Ordinance is defined to be I.R.O., 1969.
In my opinion subsection (4) would have to be read alongwith subsection (1). And therefore it will be during the course of trial, that the Tribunal has powers to issue the directions which the Labour Court has under section 51(1) of the Ordinance. It may also be pointed that under this section 13 the powers to determine the amount under subsection (2) of section 51 are not vested in the Tribunal.
8. In the case of Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Laboti! Appellate Tribunal and another, reported in PLD 1990 SC 787, their Lordships have observed with regard to the back benefits, that if full relief is not granted, the proper course in the absence of express order to that effect is to seek appropriate redress either under the Industrial Relations Ordinance or under the Civil Servants Act, as the case may be. In the instant case Civil Servants Act would not be applicable. It may also be pointed that under section 18 of the aforesaid Act, I.R.O., 1969 is made specifically applicable to the Newspaper Employees. Therefore, in my opinion the learned Labour Court did have jurisdiction to determine the amount which was payable to the respondent as back benefits under the orders of the Labour Court which was upheld by this Tribunal.
9. Admittedly after the appointment of the respondent the Fourth Award of Wage Board of Newspaper Employees was announced and became operative. Admittedly this award is applicable to the employees of applicants establishment. It is also admitted, that under the Award, house rent and conveyance allowance and increment as claimed by the respondent are payable to the employees of the newspaper.
10. The learned Labour Court has fixed salary of the respondent in Grade-V under Schedule II which is Rs,801--45--1,476. It may also be pointed that the initial consolidated pay of the respondent was Rs,850 but it is not clear what other allowance was included in this pay. Therefore the fixation of initial salary of Rs,801 by the learned Labour Court is rather more favourable to the applicants, but as no objection has been taken to this fixation by the respondent, I need not interfere. However, I find that while calculating the second increment, payable to the respondent the pay has been wrongly fixed by the learned Labour Court at Rs,901 from January, 1988 to 30-6-1988. As the pay from January to December, 1987 was Rs,846 with Rs,45 increment the pay would come to Rs,891 for the period from January, 1988. As such the amount of award would be reduced by Rs,60 from the pay of January, 1988 to 30-6-1988 and the total dues that remain payable to the respondent would be Rs,18,834. With this modification the revision application is dismissed.