DECISION ' This is a Revision Application against the order dated 15-12-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No,III at Karachi invoking the suo motu revisional jurisdiction. Of this Tribunal under section 38(3-A) of I.R.O., 1969.
2. I have heard Mr. M. Salim Khan for the Applicants and Mr. Abid Jawaid for respondent No,2.
3. It appears that the Applicant had filed grievance application No,127/1986 in the Sindh Labour Court No,III at Karachi which was allowed by an cx parte order dated 28-1-1987 and the Applicants were ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. This order was not challenged in any appeal nor any application was moved for setting aside the ex parte decree. The order had therefore attained finality under section 37(4) of I.R.O., 1969.
4. The Applicants thereafter filed applications under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969 for recovery of their dues for the period from September 1986 when their services were terminated till March 1988 when they filed applications. Apparently it appears and also this fact is admitted by Mr. M. Salim Khan that after ex parte order respondents were not reinstated.
5. Section 51 reads as under:- "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 the Ordinance, be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection
(1) and paid to the workman concerned within a specified date."
6. It would be seen that under subsection (1) the dues could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is a well-settled law that only such dues could be recovered as arrears of land revenue when amount of such dues is determined by some competent Court.
7. In the instant case the learned Labour Court while awarding back benefits under order dated 28- 1-1987 did not determine the amount of dues, C therefore subsection (2) was applicable and the respondent could move the learned Labour Court for determination of the amount of the dues and thereafter the recovery could have been made in accordance with procedure laid down in subsection (1). The learned Labour Court has rejected the applications of the applicants on the ground that they were not able to prove that M/s. Abid Jawaid and Abdul Qayum were their employers. I find that the applications are not filed against Abid Jawaid and Abdul Qayum but the applications have been filed against M/s. Abid Silk Factory, who were also respondents in Application in 127/86. The order of reinstatement passed by the learned Labour Court on 28-1-1987 has finally determined the relationship of employer and employee between applicants and M/s. Abid Silk Factory, therefore this question could not have been re-opened. As such the order of the learned Labour Court is liable to be set aside.
8. However the applicants have claimed as their dues upto March 1988, whereas under the order dated 28-1-1987 they were awarded back benefits upto 28-1-1987 and that amount only requires to be determined by the learned Labour Court. If any cause of action has arisen to the applicants after 28-1-1987 they can either move application for the recovery of the arrears of wages to the Authority under Payment of Wages Act or they may serve grievance notice upon the respondents and thereafter file fresh grievance petition.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of the learned Labour Court is set aside.
The case of the applicants is remanded back to the learned Labour Court with the direction to determine the dues of the applicants upto 28-1-1987 under subsection (1) and then it may take proceedings under subsection (1) for recovery of amount so determined.