1. ' This appeal is directed against order dated 13th November, 1995 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,III, Balochistan at Hub.
2. ' Relevant facts leading to filing of present appeal are that on 14th of March, 1995 appellants filed separate grievance petitions under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming Cost of Living Allowance on gross wages inclusive of (1) Basic Pay, (ii) CLA, (iii) House Rent, (iv)
3. Conveyance Allowance, (v) Medical Allowance, (vi) Washing Allowance and (vii) Special Allowance with effect form 1-7-1986 to 31-12-1993.
4. ' The claim was resisted by respondents through written statements filed during October, 1995.
5. Objection regarding bar of limitation was specifieally pleaded. It was asserted that appellants had not challenged the payment regarding Costs of Living Allowance calculated on basic pay and first time made demand through notice dated 8th of January, 1995.
6. ' Learned trial Court framed following five issues and gave parties opportunity of leading evidence:- -
(1) Whether Grievance Petition is maintainable under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
(2) Whether Grievance Petition is time-barred?
(3) Whether grant of Indexation by the respondent is contrary to Employees' Cost of Living (Relief)
7. Act, 1973?
(4) Whether applicant is entitled to the relief claimed for?
(5) Relief?
8. ' Mr. K.N. Kohli, Advocate informed that for substantiating claim regarding indexation on the total wages at the rate of 18% from 1st July, 1986 to 31st December, 1993 appellants have examined two witnesses namely (i) Rafiullah Khan; and (ii) Hafeez-ur-Rehman. Whereas respondents in rebuttal adduced Major (Retd.) Muhammad Sohail, General Manager.
9. ' Learned trial Court had dismissed the grievance petition mainly on the ground that Labour Court has no jurisdiction and aggrieved persons ought to have approached Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, for seeking relief. Abovesaid order has been challenged through present appeal.
10. Mr.K.N. Kohli learned counsel for appellants raised following contentions:--
(i) that trial Court seriously erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction, because respondent had disputed entitlement of appellant, therefore, Labour Court alone was competent to adjudicate upon the matter;
(ii) non-payment of dues is a recurring cause of action, therefore, question of limitation does not arise;
(iii) wages have been defined by Act I of 1974 whereby cost of living allowance was also permissible regarding allowance specified apart from basic pay.
11. ' I have carefully considered above arguments in the light of available record.
12. ' Firstly it may be seen that section 25-A, IRO specifically provides detailed procedure and period of limitation for invoking jurisdiction of Labour Court concerning right guaranteed or secured to aggrieved person under law, Award or Settlement. Section 25-A is reporduced for ready refernce:-- "25-A. Redress of individual grievance.---(1) A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his Shop Steward or Collective Bargaining Agent within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises.
(2) Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker.
(3) Where a worker brings his grievance to the notice of his employer through his Shop Steward or Collective Bargaining Agent, the employer shall, within seven days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the Shop Steward or, as the case may be, the collective bargaining agent.
(4) If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or the Shop Steward may take the matter to his Collective Bargaining Agent or the Labour Court, or, as the case may be, the Collective Bargaining Agent may take the matter to the Labour Court, and where the matter is taken to the Labour Court it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were an industrial disute: Provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2), or subsection (3), as the case may be.
(5) ........................................................................
(6) ........................................................................
(7) ........................................................................
(8) ........................................................................
(9) ........................................................................
(10) ........................................................................
13. (Underlining is mine).
14. ' Admittedly appellants are aggrieved from failure of respondent to pay "Cost of Living Allowance" with effect from 1-7-1986 till 31-12-1993. Record discloses that notice under section 25-A, IRO was issued on 8th of January, 1995, which fact is not disputed by learned counsel for appellants.
15. Factually refusal to pay cost of living allowance in the manner claimed by each appellant provided cause of action initially on 1st August, 1986. Every succeeding month gave rise to fresh cause of action. Therefore, redress could be sought for such refusal/short payment/or non-payment within the period specified under section 25-A, IRO concerning each and independent cause of action.
16. ' Bare perusal shows that claim has been instituted for payment of Cost of Living Allowance' for the period concerning from 1-7-1986 to 31-12-1993, towards 14th March, 1995. Therefore in my opinion even if Labour Court had jurisdiction the claim was glaringly barred by time. Secondly witnesses candidly admitted that they have been receiving cost of living allowance during this period as calculated by respondent. Thus grievance petition has no substance. Additionally cost of living allowance is relatable to basic pay; therefore, it cannot legitimately stretched to the allowances as being asserted on behalf of appellants.
17. ' Lastly, it is settled principle of law that appellate forum enjoys plenary jurisdiction to uphold findings of trial Court by determining other issues or assigning different reasoning. For authority reference can be made to observations case (i) PLD 1993 SC 418. Needless to say that conclusions regarding limitation are sufficient for final disposal of grievance petition filed by appellants.
18. ' For the above reasons I do not find any merits in the appeal, which is consequently dismissed.