' By the present judgment, I propose to dispose of as many as twenty revision petitions (Nos. 185 to 204 of 1994) having been preferred by the S.J. Industries, Chichawatni (through its General Manager), against Rehmat Ali, etc., as also the Workers Union of the concern (through its General Secretary). The workers had made an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sahiwal, laying claim to certain dues, while making grievance of the fact that payment of the entire dues had not been made to them, in accordance with the Golden Hand Shake Scheme. The claims were controverted and the concern took up the stand that all the dues having been paid, nothing was outstanding, and further that the claimants were also estopped by reason of their conduct to approach the Authority, as they had signed receipts in favor of the concern in proof of being in receipt of all the dues ' in manner of final and full payment'. The Authority, in the decision dated 3-10-1993, held the view that it was not a case of delayed or deducted wages, and the application, as such, was not maintainable. The petitions were accordingly dismissed (on 3-10-1993).
2. The learned Labour Court No, 9, Multan, camping at Sahiwal, however, came to a different conclusion. The appeals filed by the employees, were accepted and the Authority was asked to take decision on the rest of the issues (besides the issue, involving the question of jurisdiction).
Reliance by the learned lower Court was placed on 1980 SCM R 909 and 1992 PLC 520 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh).
3. The Crescent Ghee Mills, presently S.J. Industries, Chichawatni have come to this Court, by way of these revision petitions, bringing under challenge the soundness of the judgment dated 29-3-1994 of the learned Labour Court. It is to be noted that Mr. Ghulam Sabir Kaifi, Advocate, used to represent the respondents in the revision petitions and had been coming to the Court personally or through other Advocates, ever since 20-10-1994, but he did not do so, on the last three dates of hearing, i,e, 22-4-1997, 6-5-1997 and 15-5-1997; and his absolute absence gives an impression that the employees as respondents have probably lost interest in the matter. Anyway, I proceed to discuss the factual and legal propositions involved.
4. It was a nationalized vegetable ghee factory and was privatized by the Government. S.J.
Industries is the concern, which purchased the factory, on 5-1-1993. The Privatization Commission obtained an undertaking from the purchaser that all the employees of the factory would remain on the rolls of the establishment for a minimum period of twelve months. This was the first agreement.
There was a general agreement having earlier been arrived at on 15-10-1991, between the State owned Enterprises Employees Association, on the one hand, and the Government of Pakistan, through its Ministerial Committee and the Privatization Commission, on the other, broad features or Important conditions of which have been enumerated in para. No,3 of the revision petitions. There were 368 employees in all, and, in accordance with the said agreement dated 15-10-1991, the list was provided to the purchaser the factory or the new management by the C.B.A. As the employees were confronted with certain amount of frustration, they evolved a fresh formula, which was offered to the new management. It was discussed and adopted in its meeting by the C.B.A. Union. A third agreement, as such, was entered into, on 20-2-1993, in accordance with which the amount of golden hand shake scheme was to be paid, for the length of service or the remaining service, whichever was less, so that all the workers would be benefited.
5. As per terms of this agreement, all the 368 employees are stated to have exercised their options in writing and submitted their resignation, on obtaining total amount of their dues, in token whereof, they are said to have also executed receipts as full and final payment of the dues in favour of the management. There was no legal warrant for having afterwards approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act laying claim to any amount as outstanding dues; but 20 out of 368 employees are on record having done so, on having been induced by the 'labour leaders', it is so maintained by the concern.
6. The respondents, as already said, have neither appeared in person, nor through their learned counsel, for canvassing their view-point, at the time of final arguments; and it has not been shown to this Court as to how can this be treated as a case of delayed or deducted wages? The 'Authority' could entertain an application for payment of only 'admitted wages' and cannot possibly enter upon discussion of terms and conditions of an agreement, in an attempt to interpret and enforce the same. The erstwhile employees, in the present case, were evidently required to seek a declaration about their entitlement to the dues from a competent forum and then proceed further.
An offer was also made to the employees by the new management that they could rejoin service, on refunding the benefits, they had received, if the golden hand shake scheme was not acceptable to them. There has been no response, in respect of the said offer. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioners, and not without force, that the respondents having resigned from their service have ceased to be workers or employees, within the meaning of the Payment of Wages Act. It has also been submitted that monthly wages of these employees having exceeded Rs,3,000 per month, their claims were also beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Authority. If the agreement dated 20-2-1993 between the new management and the C.B.A. Was to be declared as not binding on the employees, or a section of old employees, the Authority obviously could not declare the agreement to be null or void or unenforceable, in all or certain respects. The employees having executed ' settlement certificates' were obviously estopped from filing further claims, and when the aforesaid agreement had been acted upon by the parties, and the employees had opted to accept the offer, and resigned from their jobs, they could not make any grievance in that regard before the Authority. It has been reiterated by the revision-petitioner that without any outside pressure, and of their own volition, the employees had tendered their resignations, after having signed the 'settlement certificates', and they could not, as such, approach the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for recovery of any dues. It was a sort of ' special grant', which the employees were to be in enjoyment of, under the Golden Hand Shake Scheme, or the agreement dated 20-2-1993, and the claims could, in no manner, be treated as delayed or deducted wages of workers. The ' Authority' could not, therefore, take cognizance of the same. In turning down their claims, for lack of jurisdiction, the Authority did not appear to have fallen in error, and the judgment rendered by the Labour Court suffered from a material irregularity, entailing, in turn, miscarriage of justice, and it was liable to interference by this Court, in exercise of its provisional jurisdiction. I would set aside the Labour Court's judgment dated 29-3-1994, by accepting the revision petitions, although with no orders as to costs.