1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The dispute between the petitioner-Corporation and respondent No, 2, a Collective Bargaining Agent within the meaning of section 22 of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969, is over the compliance or non-compliance with clause 4 (b) of the agreement admittedly/entered into by the parties on the 7th of February 1970. The agreement came into force on the 1st of January 1970.
2. ' Clause 4 (b) of the agreement is as follows :- "The pay of any individual employee shall be fixed in the revised pay scale applicable to him in such a manner that he is able to derive monetary benefit to the tune of approximately 10% of his existing emoluments, 1. e., pay in the old scale plus ad hoc relief."
3. ' There is no dispute that the pay of the petitioner's employees' was fire' with effect from the .1st of January 1970, in accordance with clause 4 (b of the agreement. The dispute arose subsequently when the increment' according to the pay scale fell due to the employees of the petitioner Corporation. At this stage, the petitioner denied the employees the benefit of the aforesaid 10 percent increase and took refuge behind the Fundamental Rules. The respondent bargaining agent, accordingly, applied to the Punjab Labour Court No, 2 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for redress of the grievance of the employees, and gave the following concrete illustration of the breach of agreement "Before the implementation if an employee was drawing Rs, 270 as his pay in the old scale Rs, 30 as ad hoc relief, he was given an increase of Rs, 30 thus bringing his pay to Rs, 330 p. In. But in the new scale applicable to him as there was no stage of Rs, 330 therefore, Rs, 10 (sic) was Rs, 300-20-403- 25-600. At the time of accrual of his annual increment his salary was increased to Rs, 340 instead of Rs, 350 thus causing him a loss of Rs, 10."
4. ' The Labour Court held that there was breach of the agreement and that Fundamental Rules did not apply, and that the petitioner was bound to fix the pay in the manner laid down in clause 4 (b) of the agreement. The Labour Court, accordingly, directed implementation of the said clause in such a way that each employee gets the monetary benefit to the tune of 10 p. c. Increases. The petitioner approached the Lahore High Court on a Constitution Petition, and it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Court. The learned Single Judge agreed with the Labour Court that the Fundamental Rules did not apply. We agree with this conclusion of the two Courts below. The very foundation on which the petitioner based the withdrawal of the aforesaid personal pay of the employee has thus fallen.
5. ' The petitioner contended before the High Court, and has repeated the contention before us that the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance suffered from aches and estoppel. This was rightly repelled by the High Court on the ground that the breach was a continuing a wrong and that it was not the case of any party that the initial fixation made by the petitioner suffered from any defect or illegality.
6. ' It has also been contended before us that it was a case of 'any difficulty or doubt' in respect of the interpretation of Award, and, therefore, under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance only the Labour Tribunal had jurisdiction in the matter and not the Labour Court. There is no substance in the contention. There is no Award in the present case, C nor is there any difficulty or doubt about its interpretation.
7. ' The Punjab Labour Court had jurisdiction in the matter, and the petitioner's contention to the contrary is inacceptable.
8. ' This is not a fit case interference with the order of the High Court, and the petition is accordingly dismissed.