1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J. ---The abovementioned three petitions for leave to appeal arise out of a common order of High Court of Sindh dated 11-1-1993. By the impugned order the learned High Court declared the order of Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees dated 4-2-1988 as without lawful authority.
2. ' The three private respondents in the above petitions, namely, Shamsul Huda Ansari, Haider Imam and S. Zahid Hussain, who were employees of M/s. Matri Publications Limited, Karachi, applied to the Implementation Tribunal complaining of non-implementation of the Fourth Wage Award in accordance with the Fitment Formula stipulated in paragraph 46(1) of the Award. The learned Tribunal on the basis of admitted chart of pay scales of employees submitted before it came to the conclusion that the management though acted correctly in fixing their pay by merging the existing pay and dearness allowance admissible under the 3rd Wage Board Award but failed to fix their pay in the new consolidated pay scale in terms of the para. 46(1) of the Fourth Wage Board Award which required fixation of pay at the next higher stage to their aggregate pay arrived at after merging the dearness allowance in their existing pay. It was also found by the Tribunal that these employees were also entitled to an increment for every 5 years' of completed service in that grade subject to the maximum of two increments.
3. ' The learned Judges of the High Court on interpretation of section 13 of Act LVIII of 1973 reached the conclusion that the direction issued by the Tribunal amounted to adjudication of an individual dispute which was outside the scope of its jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that section 12-A of the Act LVIII of 1973 clearly spells out the purpose of constitution of the Tribunal as implementation of the decision of Wage Board constituted under the Act. Therefore, if the Tribunal had passed the order A which only secured the implementation of the award of the Fourth Wage Board, the order could not be defeated on a narrow interpretation of section 55 or 51(1) of the I.R.O.
5. ' The contention requires examination. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the above contention. The operation of impugned judgment is suspended meanwhile.