DECISION ' This is a suo motu revision application under section 38(3-A) of I.R.O., 1969, filed by the applicant establishment against an impugned order, dated 10-11-1986, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, who had allowed the payment of gratuity to the respondent vide his application under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had claimed an amount of Rs,28,520 towards his gratuity and the amount of bonus in view of an agreement, arrived at between the applicant management and the union that on the encloser of the applicant establishment, the workers would be paid to him, he preferred an application under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court.
3. The applicant establishment resisted the petition on the grounds that, the respondent was not an aggrieved worker within the meaning of law to prefer this claim when he had already received his dues and that as, he had given an undertaken not to file any case before any Authority or Court of Law which had legal significance, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his application_ under section 51, I.R.O., 1969, which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined, thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present suo motu revision application.
5. I have heard Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani, the learned representatives for the applicant establishment and Mr. M.M. Jeelani, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceeding of the case. Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani, the learned representative for the applicant establishment has contended that as the respondent was drawing a salary more than Rs,1,000 and had a number of helper as well as Assistant Electrician working under him and he used to control them and to supervise their works and also to sanction their leave etc., therefore, he was not a workman and that the learned Labour Court was not correct in holding him a workman.
He further contended that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate the facts the respondent was not a person to whom a letter was alleged issued by the Directorate of Labour and that the status of an employee is not to be determined as to whether he was a member of union but his nature of duties performed and the salary drawn by him is to be taken into consideration and further that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to interpret the memorandum of settlement, arrived at between the parties. Mr. Farooq A. Ghani has further submitted that the learned Court did not appreciate the facts that it was nowhere mentioned in the settlement that the worker would be granted gratuity, particularly, in view of the facts that the applicant establishment had provident fund scheme to which he had contributed to the amount equal to the amount so contributed by the workers and immediately the respondent was also a member to that scheme. Lastly, it was the argument of Mr. Farooq A. Ghani that unless and until any money is not due under an award of a settlement and workman is not due in the term of the section 51 of I.R.O., 1969, and since the gratuity was not specifically mentioned in the said settlement same could not be created as benefits and or in the said alternative money due within the meaning or in the contemplation of section 51, I.R.O., 1969, I see so far in any of Mr. Farooq A. Ghani the learned representative for the applicant establishment. After a careful perusal of the impugned order I would that is then the workers would to make an application before either the Authority or the Labour Court for the determination of the amount legal dues means the workers had accrued to during the course. As the respondent is admittedly proved to be a workman and an aggrieved person, therefore he was, entitled to get all his dues including the gratuity, also in term of the said settlement. As regards the payment of bonus, it is an admitted position that the applicant establishment was not in production since a long time, therefore, the question of earning profit did not arise. In view of the facts and circumstances, as well as documentary evidence brought on record, I would hold that the respondent, being an aggrieved workman, was entitled to the payment of his gratuity, as his remaining legal dues.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present suo motu revision application is accordingly dismissed.
The respondent is directed to be paid his amount of gratuity, forthwith.