1. ' MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, J.---The petitioner was employed by respondent No, 2, Urdu Academy Sindh, as accountant and he was also required to perform other functions. The petitioner was removed from service by letter dated 10-6-1986. The grievance petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Labour Court by order dated 14-11-1987, however, on appeal filed by petitioner, the order was reversed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 28-4- 1988 and the petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity in service and the wages for the period of employment. Respondent No, 2 filed Constitution petition in this Court which was dismissed in limine. The matter was taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where operation of the order passed by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal was stayed to the extent of back benefits. Consequently, the petitioner was paid wages from May 1988 at the same rate as were being paid to him earlier.
2. ' The petitioner filed another grievance petition before the Labour Court seeking the following reliefs:
(A) To allow the applicant to sign the muster roll for ensuring attendance.
(B) To take payment with increased wages by virtue of annual increment and cost of living allowance.
(C) To restore the work of Accountant.
(D) To grant all kinds of leave with pay.
(E) To provide medical facilities.
(F) And any other relief deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court.
3. ' The Labour Court, however, by order dated 31-3-1991 granted the relief of annual increment and cost of living allowance from January 1986 till Octol er, 1989, the petitioner in the meanwhile having been retired with effect from 31st October, 1989 and leave with pay under provisions of Standing Orders 8 of. The West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
4. Ordinance, 1968. Respondent No, 2 challenged this order in appeal and so also the petitioner, inasmuch as, he was refused the other reliefs by the Sindh Labour Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. In so far as the appeal of respondent No, 2 is concerned, the relief pertaining to annual increment granted by the Labour Court was set aside. The petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 15-7-1991 passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal in so far as the annual increment has been disallowed to the petitioner. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal had disallowed the annual increment for the reason that there was no law under which an employee could claim annual increment as a matter of right. It was also found that there was no such settlement between the employer and the employee, whereunder the petitioner could claim annual increment. Before the Labour Appellate Tribunal it was pleaded that respondent No, 2 had granted increments to some of the employees of the Establishment and, therefore, the petitioner also should be treated alike. The above contention was repelled with the observation that it was the prerogative of the employer to give increased wages to such employees, who were found more useful to the Establishment.
5. ' We have heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Chaudhry Rashid Ahmed, learned Advocate for respondent No, 2.
6. ' The petitioner raised the same arguments before us as were raised before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal.
7. ' Section 3 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
8. Ordinance, 1968, provides that in every Industrial or Commercial establishment conditions of the employment of workmen and other industrial matters, shall, subject to the other provisions of the Ordinance, be regulated in accordance with the Standing Orders. Section 4 provides that the Standing Orders may be modified by means of collective agreement and not otherwise.
9. It is admitted position that neither there is any settlement between respondent No, 2 arid its employees, nor there is any law, whereby annual increment has been guaranteed to the employees of respondent No,
2. It is established law that under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only such rights as are guaranteed can be enforced.
10. ' Standing Order 2-A, provides that every workman at the time of his appointment, transfer, or promotion, shall be provided with an order in writing' showing the terms and conditions of his service. The' petitioner has not produced his letter of appointment to support the contention that under the terms of his employment, he is entitled to the relief being claimed by him. Although Standing Orders 8, 10-A, 10-B, 10-C and 11 contain the provisions of holidays, and leave with pay, payment for unavailcd leave, for Group Incentive Scheme, Compulsory Group Insurance, payment of bonus, wages for detention after stoppage of work, Compensation during lay off etc. But no provisions have been made in the Standing Orders with regard to annual increment.
11. The legislature has thus left the question of grant of increment to the absolute discretion of the employer and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right in absence of settlement and terms and conditions of service to the said effect. The petitioner is not entitled to annual increment as claimed by him. The petition is, therefore, dismissed being without substance.
12. ' By order dated 29-8-1991, respondent No, 2 was directed to deposit dues of the petitioner in this Court in accordance with the orders of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and accordingly on 17- 9-1991, a sum of Rs,12,902 was deposited by the respondent No, 2 The petitioner filed statement of accounts claiming a sum of Rs,17,648.65. By order dated 11-11-1991, it was ordered that the question of actual dues will be derided at the time of hearing of the main petition.
13. Respondent No, 2 has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner is entitled to cost of living at the rate of 18% of his wages, which works out to Rs,10,692 and for leave for .3 years, at 14 days per year which comes to Rs,2,210. It is further stated that the above total entitlement of Rs,12,902 has been worked out on the gross wages of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner is entitled to the amount deposited by respondent No,
2. The said amount be. Paid to the petitioner on usual verification.