1. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CH., J.---Precisely stating the facts of the case are that on 20th March, 1993 Agri Auto - Progressive Labour Union(C.BA.)/Petitioner submitted an application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Baluchistan in terms of section 50 of the. Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the interpretation of para. 4 out of the clause relating to confirmation/assurance of objects by the Union/CBA, of the settlement dated 4-9-1990, which reads as under:-- The application was contested by the unofficial respondent consequently it was declined vide order, dated 30th July, 1993 by the Honourable Labour Appellate Tribunal. As such instant Constitutional petition has been filed.
2. Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch learned counsel who appeared on behalf of petitioner had questioned the validity of the impugned order as having been passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
3. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Yaqoob learned counsel for unofficial respondent stressed that the application filed by the petitioner was incompetent in view of the fact that the agreement/settlement interpretation whereof was prayed for had expired on 31st December, 1991, therefore, a non--living issue was brought before the Tribunal for the interpretation. Since section 50 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to interpret a settlement/agreement which is in existence, as such the application was not competent and order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal having been passed with lawful authority does not admit any interference by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. It is to be observed that after the execution of settlement/agreement between the parties on 4th September, 1990 the Provincial Government promulgated the Baluchistan Employees' Special Allowance Ordinance, III, 1990 to provide further monitory relief to the employees working in the Province of Baluchistan by allowing benefit to every employee having wages up to Rs.2,500 in respect of his employment on or after 1st day of December, 1990, whether on time-work or piece- work basis an amount equal to Rs.200 per month in terms of section 3. Besides section 4 of the Ordinance held responsible to employer for making the payment of said allowance. Later on from time to time successive Ordinances were issued by the Provincial Government to keep alive the facility of payment of Special Allowance to the workers with certain amendments/modifications particularly enacting a proviso to section 3 relating to set-off against the amount payable etc. Subsequently on 11th May, 1992 the Ordinance was made Act V of 1992 to be known as the Baluchistan Employees' Special Allowance Act, 1992 with date of its commencement of 1st December, 1990. It is pertinent to observe that section 3 was adopted in the form, without the proviso relating to set-off against the amount payable. It would be expedient to reproduce hereinbefore section 3 of Act V of 1992:-- '
5. "Every employee irrespective of his wages whether on time-work or piece-work basis be paid by the employer a Special Allowance of Rs.200 per month during the course of his employment on or after the 1st day of December, 1990."
6. Moreover, section 6 identified the forums for the recovery of the claim or delay in the recovery of payment of Special Allowance. For ready reference section 6 is reproduced as under:-- "Where contrary to the provisions of this Act the Special Allowance of any employee has been withheld or delayed such worker himself or through any other person authorised by him in this behalf may apply: (a)In the case of an establishment to which the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 (W.P. Ordinance No. VIII of 1969), for the time being applies, to the authority appointed under subsection (1) of section 12 thereof having jurisdiction and the provisions of the said section and sections 11, 13, 21, 23, 30 and 32 of that Ordinance shall, so far as may be and with the necessary modifications apply for the purposes of recovery of the Special Allowance; and
(b) In any other case, to the authority appointed under subsection (1) of section 15 of the, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, having jurisdiction and the provisions of the said section and sections 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 26 of the said Act shall, so far as may be and with the necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of recovery of the Special Allowance."
7. Keeping in view above legislative history of the Act V of 1992 we also examined application under section 50 of I.R.O. Submitted by the petitioner before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. On perusal whereof it emerges that chiefly the object of invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was to enforce the right guaranteed to the employees/workers of petitioners' Union for the recovery of Special Allowance. Although prayer was made to interpret the settlement, dated 4th September, 1990 with reference to context of the Baluchistan Special Allowance Ordinance, 1990 to hold that the respondent Management is liable to pay Rs.200 per month with effect from 1st December, 1990 under the Ordinance referred hereinbefore.
8. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob emphatically argued that the management even prior to promulgation of the Ordinance III of 1990 had agreed to pay considerable amount of wages to its employees and objectively incorporated Article 4 in the para. Of agreement relating to confirmation/assurance of objects by the CBA/Union whereby they agreed for a set-off in case of enhancement/increase in allowances by the Government during subsistence of said settlement. So much so from time to time various compensatory allowances were increased by the Management/Employer and presently each employee is receiving Rs.850 towards additional allowances therefore, notwithstanding the promulgation of Ordinance III of 1990 or Act V of 1992 employees of the respondent-Organisation are not entitled to receive Special Allowance at the rate of Rs.200 per month each because they are already getting more than what has been prescribed by the statute.
9. In view of above controversy in our opinion it would be necessary t--- examine the scope of section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, to determine whether in the given circumstances the Honourable Tribunal was bound to interpret, the settlement, dated 4th September, 1990 between the parties or it was a simple case for the enforcement of rights guaranteed under the statutory provisions. For sake of convenience section 50 is reproduced hereunder:-- "Section 50: interpretation of settlement and awards: --(1) If any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provisions of an award or settlement, it shall be referred to the Tribunal constituted under this Ordinance.
10. (2)The Tribunal to which a matter is referred under subsection (1) shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the matter, and its decision shall be final and binding on the parties."
11. A bare perusal of the above section manifestly makes it clear that Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to interpret the settlement or award if any difficulty or doubt arises out of it which for the time being is in existence and not a settlement, which had already lost its life. As far as the claim of the petitioner-Union is concerned that relates to the enforcement of rights guaranteed under the Baluchistan Employees Special Allowance Act, 1992, which does not fall with in the domain of the Tribunal. For the purpose of interpretation and petitioner-Union conveniently could have enforced such rights by invoking the provision of section 6 of the Act.
12. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob urged that petitioner Union due to its conduct has now waived its right to claim the Special Allowance and remedy as such is not available to them by invoking the jurisdiction of the forums under the aforesaid provision of law.
13. We have purposely exercised our constraint not to dilate upon this aspect of the case because any observation by this Court in that behalf might cause prejudice to the case of any of the parties if presented before the competent forum. Therefore, this question is left upon for the decision by the appropriate authority..
14. In view of above discussion we are inclined to hold that the impugned order has been passed by the Honourable Labour Appellate Tribunal in excess of jurisdiction, consequently having no legal force. However, it is observed that petitioner-Union shall be at liberty to move the forums as has been provided under section 6 of Act V of 1992 for the enforcement of their guaranteed rights for the recovery of Special Allowance if so advised and desired by them: The respondent Organisation shall also be free to agitate all legal/factual objections permissible under the law If such proceedings are initiated before the concerned authority those shall be dispose of on its own merits without having been influenced from any observations made hereinabove.
15. In view of the above terms petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.