DECISION HeardMr. Khalilur Rehman, Representative for the applicants/informants.
2, A grievance petition for reinstatement and back benefits was filed before the Labour Court. This petition was allowed and reinstatement with back benefits was ordered. The management of Pak Suzuki Motors preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Being dissatisfied they filed A Constitution petition in the High Court which was later on withdrawn. The back benefits were recovered from the High Court. At that the workmen claimed that the back benefits were insufficient as they did not include other benefits apart from wages such as Conveyance Allowance, House Rent, Attendance Allowance, Washing Allowance and Medical Allowance. So, they filed an application under section 51 of the I.R.O. Before another Labour Court claiming these benefits. The Labour Court dismissed the claim for recovery as Arrears of Land Revenue. Against that order a Revision Application under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969, has been preferred in this Court.
3. Under section 51 for an amount to be recovered as Arrears of Land Revenue to conditions are mentioned:
(i) if upon an application the Labour Court so direct; and
(ii) if the amount of benefits is capable of being computed in terms of money.
In this case there is no direction from the Labour Court for recovery of the amount as Arrears of Land Revenue and the various claims of the workmen are vague and indefinite so that they cannot be ascertained in terms of money.
4. I can, therefore, see no reason for holding the order of the Lower Court to be incorrect, illegal or improper. I, accordingly, find no ground for interference in a Revision Application against the order