1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---Respondent No, 3 filed an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, before the learned IVth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, claiming gratuity from the petitioner under the settlement which had been executed by the petitioner with the Collective Bargaining Agent. The application was resisted by the petitioner, firstly, on the ground that it was legally not maintainable and, secondly, that the respondent No,3 was not a workman. An objection was also raised that the respondent No,3 was not entitled to the payment of gratuity since there was a provident fund scheme prevailing in the petitioner Management. The Labour Court, however, brushed aside the said objection and granted the respondent's application and held that he was entitled to the claim of gratuity against the petitioner.
2. ' The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision, filed a suo motu revision before the learned Sindh Appellate Tribunal, which, however, was not convinced and has upheld the decision of the Labour Court.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Muhammad Majeed Jeelani, learned counsel for the respondent No,3.
4. ' The only contention of Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner before us has been that section 51 does not empower the Labour Court to determine questions of fundamental nature.
5. Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance provides as follows:- "51. Recovery of money due from an employer under a settlement or award---(1) Any money due from an employer under a settlement, or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand (if upon the application of the person entitled to the money, the Labour Court, so directs).
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, under a settlement or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court of Tribunal, which is capable of being computed in terms of money the amount at which such benefit shall be computed, may, subject to the rules made under this Ordinance, be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection
(1) and paid to the workman concerned within a specified date."
6. ' A plain reading of section 51 indicates that it empowers the Labour Court to direct that any money due from an employer under a settlement or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as public demand. Subsection
(2) further indicates that where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit under a settlement or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, such benefit shall be computed and the amount may be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection (1) of section 51. The provisions of section 51 came up for examination before a Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No,B-552/81 Karachi Club v. Muhammad Farooq decided on 6-8-1985. In this case the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service but the employer was permitted to hold a fresh enquiry against him. The employers seemed to have taken steps for holding such an enquiry but the respondent had succeeded in causing the enquiry to be withheld. In the meantime the respondent moved an application before the Labour Court under section 51 of Industrial Relations Ordinance seeking an order of payment of his back benefits to him. However, his request was declined by the Labour Court which held that the respondent was not entitled to make an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance as the result of the fresh enquiry had not been made known.
7. When the matter ultimately came up before this Court. It was held as follows:-- "It appears from the test of section 51 reproduced above that it envisages recovery of money due from an employer under the settlement, or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal as arrears of land revenue or as public demand, but this section does not provide for determination of any claim against an employer."
8. ' It was ultimately held that the application filed under section 51 under the circumstances of the case, was misconceived and was not maintainable under the law.
9. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,3 has placed reliance upon the judgment earlier given by one of us in the case of Ghulam Mustafa v. Vth Sindh Labour Court and another (1987 PLC 601) wherein it was held that a dual function had been assigned to the Labour Court first, to determine the amount awarded by way of back benefits if such amount was capable of being computed in terms of money and second, to order its recovery from employer as provided for in subsection (1) of section 51. In our view, reference to this case by Mr. Jeelani is completely misconceived as the question requiring determination in the present case is clearly distinguishable. As is clear from the language used by the legislature in section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, section 51 entitles the workman to recover money due to him and the section clearly envisages that the amount claimed by the workman should have been determined either under a settlement or under an award or a decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal. In that case the amount payable can be recovered from the employer as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand. Subsection
(2) of section 51 only enables the Labour Court to determine the amount of money due if the same is capable of being computed in terms of money, but the said subsection nowhere empowers the Labour Court to adjudicate upon any claim between an employer and a workman or determine questions raising issues of fundamental nature. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner had raised objection in regard to the maintainability of the application itself. Such question could not be decided by the Labour Court by virtue of limited nature of the powers vesting in it under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The learned Appellate Tribunal clearly appears to have over looked this important aspect of the case. We, therefore, find ourselves in full agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court was not vested with jurisdiction to determine the claims instituted by respondent No,3 in respect of gratuity.
10. ' In the result, we allow this petition and quash the order passed by the learned Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. ' Mr. Raja Qureshi points out that the amount payable to respondent No,3 under the order of the learned Labour Court was deposited by the petitioner in this Court, in view of this judgment the petitioner would be entitled to get refund of the said amount.