' These three petitions, arising from a composite order of the Sind Labour Court No, 5, Karachi, dated 20th March, 1973, which will be disposed of by this common judgment, have arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The respondents No, 3, in these petitions were workmen employed by the petitioner. There appears to be a spate of litigation between the parties. Shorn of all the details, all that needs to be mentioned here, is that they came to be dismissed from employment after they had been served with charge-sheets. Then, they filed separate applications before the Junior Labour Courts, claiming bonus, arrears of increment, interest on workers, participation fund, principal amount of workers, participation fund, and half salary for a specified period.
3. The written reply filed on behalf of the petitioner admitted the entitlement of these dues. The application was, however, resisted on the ground that a sum of Rs, 1,23,115 remained outstanding towards the various applicants, which they were "supposed to return to the Company and which had not been done" till then, and therefore the Company was justified to withhold the dues of the applicants against this amount. By consent of the parties, no evidence was led in the case, and the matter was argued on legal grounds alone. The Junior Labour Court was of the view that there was no provision of withholding the claim under the scheme of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and therefore the applicants were entitled to the salary and other claims, as particularised in the application and admitted by the present petitioner, within a period of fourteen days. The petitioner took an appeal. The Sind Labour Court added that section 7 (f) of the Payment of Wages Act did not entitle the employer to make any deduction for recovery of advances, and for adjustment of over payment of wages. It was further found that nothing had been produced to show that the contesting respondents really owed anything. Otherwise too, the adjustment was sought towards an embezzled amount, for which the cashier of the Company had already been challaned in a Court of law.
4. The contention raised before me was, that the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter, in view of the sepecial provisions, namely section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as amended, and section 12 of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. Reliance was placed on Moldeen v. Presiding Officer, Second Court and 2 others (1).
The dispute therein was, whether a workman could claim the relief of overtime wages from the Labour Court. The observation was that section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was the general law, and was procedural in nature, while the claim was covered under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. The relief, therefore, could only be granted by the authority constituted under the scheme of the latter Ordinance. The same contention had been raised in the case of Americano Dry Cleaners v. Abdul Karim (2).
' Mr. Justice Inamullah Khan of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal had, however, held that section 13 of the said Ordinance was no bar, as section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance could not be said to be a suit for recovery of wages, as the Labour Courts were not civil Courts, and they had only certain powers of the civil Courts in certain matters. It was also the view taken in Messrs Luxury House (Firm), Dacca v. First Labour Court, East Pakistan, Dacca (3).
' The dispute in the said case was in regard to claim for certain amount in lieu of notice, compensation, wages for unavailed annual leave, and arrears of wages. Due notice was taken of section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. There is also the case of General Steel Tools Company, Gujranwala v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore and 28 others (4).
' The point involved in the precedent case was, as to whether gratuity could be claimed in a proceeding before the Labour Court under section 25-A
(1) 1976 PLC 517 (2) 1976 PLC 575
(3) PLD 1969 Dacca 410 (4) PLD 1976 Lab. 528 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Reference was made to the cases of Messrs Luxury House and Arnericano Dry Cleaners, referred to earlier, and the same view was taken. It was further observed that, though the remedy was provided in the Payment of Wages Act, yet the right had been conferred in another statute, and "hence the person aggrieved appears to be the master of the situation, and can pick and choose the forum, which he considers more appropriate for the redress of his grievance This is not a case of exclusive jurisdiction, but a case of two remedies being-available to a person, leaving the person concerned to choose whichever remedy is more beneficial to him." The application, therefore, was found to be maintainable.
5. Admittedly, there is a provision for the recovery of bonus, gratuity and provident fund, including the contribution of the employer, in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Payment of wages also have to be made in accordance with Standing Order No, 10 of the said Ordinance. Otherwise too, under section 35(5).D, the Labour Courts can exercise and perform such other powers and functions as may be conferred upon, or, assigned to it .By, or, under this Ordinance or, any other law. Then, comes subsection (6), which reads as under :- "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VII of 1923) or the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936), the Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint Labour Court to be, or confer upon it any power or function of, any authority under any of the said Acts, and upon such notification, the Labour Court shall be deemed to be such authority and shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of such authority under any of the said Acts, and upon such notification, the Labour Court shall be deemed to be such authority and shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of such authority under the relevant Act."
' It was not the case of the petitioners before the Labour Courts that there was no such notification issued by the Provincial Government. The point has not been specifically raised in these petitions.
The argument, which has been advanced now therefore, need not be examined.
6. However, in the applications, there were no detail as to how much would be the half salary from 18-2-1972 to 22-6-1972, or, what would be the actual figures for the four other claims. Admittedly there was no evidence in the case. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders are not precise and definite, and therefore liable to create complications. In this view of the matter, I would quash the orders, and remand the case to the Sind Labour Court for clearly specifying the various items, if necessary, by giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. .