DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the leamed Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V dated the 17th of August, 1974 in an application under section 32 (1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance').
2. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, for the appellant, confined his arguments to three points namely, (1) over-time wages, (2) festival holidays and (3) workers' participation fund. I propose to dispose of these three contentions separately. The case of the appellant was that the Company has been taking over-time work but has not paid over-time.
In this connection Mr. Rizvi relied on Exh. H-16 at page 197 of the paper book of the lower Court, and submitted that Mr. Tufail, Barman, works for 14 hourse without break. On the other hand, Mr. Kanial Mansur, for the respondent submitted that Mr. Tufail Ahmed does not work for 14 hours without break. He works in the morning from 10-30 a.m. to 12- 30 p. m. and in the evening from 6-30 p.m. to 12-30 a.m. It is also signed by Mr. Tufail Ahmed. This is so as would appear from Exh. H/16. Thus Mr. Tufail Ahmed works only eight hours a day and that also with a break of six hours from 12-30. pin. to 6*30 pm. There is a clear break of six hours. Thus there is no force in the contention of Mr. Rizvi that Mr. Tufail Ahmed works for 14 hours without break. Moreover, the Union has agreed under a Settlement dated the 21st of April, 1972. The relevant portion reads as under :-- "It has further been agreed that in full settlement of all claims and demands in respect of over-time that may have been done by the workers prior to the date of this settlement, the Company shall pay ex gratia payments within three months to all the workers drawing Rs. 140 as monthly wages on the following basis :-- (n) each of those working in "Refreshment Rooms" will be paid a lump sum amount of Rs.
800; (6) each of those working in ( i) "Country Liquor Shops"; () "Toddy Shops"; iiii) "Off Shops"; and
(iv) "Trade & Import Godown" of the Company will be paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 500. The Union and all the workers hereby undertake that they will in future not raise the question of payment of over-time for any period previous to the date of this Settlement." The Settlement is signed by the President of the Union, the General Secretary and other office-bearers of the Union. In view of the agreement l would hold that the Union cannot demand any over-time payment during the period of the operation of the said Settlement which is for a period of two years i.e. up to 31st of March, 1974.
3. In the next place Mr. Rizvi contended that section 4 of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under:-- "Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance any establishment or any class thereof or any employer or employee or class of employers or employees on such conditions as it may thinkfit." requires that exemption from the operation from any of the provisions of the Odinancc can be granted only on some conditions. The particular Gazette Notification is at page 223 of the lower Court record. It reads as under :-- "No. SO (L-II)-IV-( 16)/71.--In exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 4 of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969 (West Pakistan Ordinance VHI of 1969), read with the provisions of the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, the Government of Sind are pleased to exempt the excise licensed shops in the Province of Sind from the provisions of sections 7 (1) and I6 of the said Ordinance. S. M. WASIM, Secretary to the Government of Sind.'* Mr. Rizvi contended that the Notification is bad in law as it does not give any condition for the. exemption. My interpretation of section 4 ofr the West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969 is that it LIa discretionary for the Government to put any condition or not. I would1 hold that the Notification is good in law.
4. Lastly it was contended that the Union is entitled to profits under the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The learned Court has come to the conclusion relying on section 5 of the Act that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction, it is only the Central Government which can be moved in the matter. Mr. Ashraf Rizvi submitted that the parties had agreed to refer these demands to the Labour Court for adjudication. It is well settled law that consent of thel parties cannot confer jurisdiction on any Court if it does not otherwise*# have. Moreover, Mr. Kamal Mansur referred to the terms of the agree-] ment to refer the dispute to Labour Court. It is clear from a perusal of the agreement that the respondent had reserved the right to take any legal objection that was available to him. The question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law and the respondent was entitled to raise the same on the term of the agreement. I would hold that the learned Court rightly held that it has no jurisdiction to decide the demand under the Act.
5. The appeal, for the reasons, given above, is dismissed.