' These are thirty-one revision applications against thirty workers, filed separately, against the order, dated 30th July, 1997, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, whereby he allowed the applications under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969, made by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the workers") ordering the applicants (hereinafter referred to as "the management") to make payments to the workers, as prayed for in their application.
2. Since common question of fact and law are involved all the thirty-one revision applications are disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts, giving rise to the above revision applications, briefly stated, are that Hydri Ghee Industries, Hyderabad was owned by the Ghee Corporation, Government of Pakistan and all the respondents were working in the said Corporation. In or about 1990, the Government initiated to privatize the Government owned factories including the said Ghee Industry. As a result of protest by the workers against it, an agreement was reached between the Government of Pakistan and all Pakistan Enterprise Workers. The main purpose of the agreement seems to be to safeguard the interest of the workers. By another agreement, the Hyderi Ghee Industries was sold to the Workers'
Union. It appears that the Workers' Union could not run it and, in turn, sold the said Industry to the management, the respondent No,2 being its Managing Director. The workers were relieved from their jobs under a Golden Hand Shake Scheme, as offered and accepted by and between the workers and the management. The management agreed to pay their dues, duly determined and specified therein and, in fact, issued cheques to the workers including the respondent herein, but they all were dishonoured. The workers ran from pillar to post and made their efforts for realisation of the dues through conciliation officer and other Government agencies including the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, but to no avail. As submitted before this Tribunal, the respondent No,2, in the Labour Court the Managing Director, being a very influential person, they failed in all their efforts to recover their dues from the management. Having no other course open, they filed separate applications under section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court No,VI at Hyderabad.
4. The respondents filed their affidavits in evidence separately and all the cases were consolidated by the learned Presiding Officer. Only respondent Muhammad Ramzan, the main respondent, was cross-examined by the applicant's Advocate. The respondent also examined other witnesses (1)
Shamsul Hassan Jafri, the Deputy Director Labour (Conciliation), Hyderabad, (2) Izharul Haq of Employees Group of Hyderi Industries, the first Purchaser and (3) Adil Shah, President, CBA Union.
They were all cross-examined by the applicant's Advocate. The applicants, however, produced no evidence
5. The 'learned Presiding Officer allowed the said applications under 'section 51 of I.R.O., by his order, dated 30-7-1997, impugned herein in these revision applications ordering the applicants herein to pay the dues of the workers as per settlement. Operative part of the said order reads as under:-- "..There is now documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the applicants' case and they went unrebutted and unchallenged, I have no option but to allow these 39 applications filed by the above-named applicants as prayed. The respondent is directed to make payments of the dues payable to each applicant separately as they claimed including salaries of each worker due, as per agreement. The salary to each worker shall be paid till the full and final dues are paid, if failed to make the payment as directed within one month, The arrears of the workers be recovered from the respondents as arrears of land revenue. The applicants are entitled to the amount as they claimed and mentioned in para. 2 hereinabove, including the arrears of salary."
6. Before proceeding further, let me reproduce section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969 in full, which reads as under:-- "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 or 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."
7. Mr. Fasahat H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the management, submitted that the application under section 51 is not maintainable. There being no settlement, or award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal section 51 is not applicable. He referred to Annexure 'A' (at page 27 of R&P) only, an agreement, dated 15-10-1991 and submitted that it is not between the management and the workers.
8. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, representative of the workers, in reply to the plea, raised by the learned counsel for the management, submitted that there are as many as five agreements/settlements, which have been completely ignored by the management's counsel.
9. Representative of the workers referred to the agreement, dated 15-10-1991, arrived at between the Government of Pakistan and All Pakistan State Enterprises Workers' Action Committee (APSEWAC) and others (Annexure A-1, pp 27-45 or Original Case No,9 of 1995) under section 51 of I.R.O. Whereby the said parties arrived at an agreement on the package of measures for the benefit of workers of the State enterprises, being privatised (page 27). It was, inter alia provided under the heading "terms of agreement" with sub-heading "package 'A' " which reads as under:-- "(i) Employee would be accorded all protection available to them under the Labour Laws. As a special measure no retrenchment of the employees would be allowed during the first twelve months.
(ii) 10% of the shares of the privatized units would be offered to the employees at a mutually agreed rate."
' Under package 'B', it was, inter alia, provided that: "Employees opting for golden handshake of units and corporations may do so on the following- terms:-
(a) One month's gratuity for each complete year of service will be payable. Wherever this gratuity is non-existent or less than of one month, the gratuity will be assumed to be of one month. This will be paid by the employees unit.
(b) Four months last drawn basic salary for each year of service will be paid in addition under arrangements of the Privatisation Commission. The basic salary is defined as under:--
(i) Where cost of living allowance and indexation is merged it will be taken as basic salary.
(ii) Wherever cost of living allowance and indexation is not merged e.g. Where agreements stand against indexation, this will be included for a calculation of basic salary (list of such units where this is applicable is to be given alongwith date of latest agreements).
(c) All dues will be paid only after the sale of units. However, all possible measures will be adopted to settle the dues before handing over of the units.
(d) List of employees opting for golden handshake shall be provided by the respective C.B.As.
(e) All these including seasonal regular employees, who wish to avail the facility will give their option before the sale agreement is signed. "
' Under package 'C'. It was, inter alia, provided that: "(1) ..........................................
(2) Employees will be provided all opportunities to purchase a unit if they make a bid. They will also have right of negotiations on the highest bid,'"
10. Representative of the workers also referred to sale agreement, dated 14-9-1992 (Annexure A/5, pp. 159-163 of R&P in Case No,1 of 1995), arrived at between Hydari Industries Limited through the Privatisation Commission, Ministry of Finance and Hydari Ghee Industries through Employees Group of Hydari Industries Limited, whereby Hydari Ghee Industries Limited was agreed to be sold to the employee against a total sale price of Rs,15,550,000 (Rupees seventeen million five hundred and fifty thousand only). The manner of payment of the sale price was also agreed.
11. Reference was also made to an agreement, dated 1st March, 1993 (Annexure A/3, pp.95 to 107 of R&P in Case No,1 of 1995), arrived at between the Employees Group of Companies Hydari Ghee Industries and Ghulam Muhammad Dakhan, the Managing Director of the applicants/management. Under this agreement, the details of the sale of the Hydari Ghee Industries were settled, which run in several pages;. Whereunder, it was, inter alia, agreed that.
"Hydari Ghee Industries Ltd. Has assumed the entire liability arising on account of golden handshake scheme. Further Hydari Ghee Industries Ltd. Shall be responsible for all liabilities that may crop up in future as a result of all pending suits, claims etc., or those that may arise in future in respect of all assets, transaction and rights exercised whatsoever of Hydari Industries.- Limited.
(page 2).
' Clause-iii ' The remaining 65 workers from the list provided to the Privatisation Commission shall be paid Golden Hand Shake equal to 1+4 basic+cola+index pay for each completed year of service as announced by the Federal Government within 40 days of the takeover by the party of the second part. Besides these salaries the party of the second part shall also provide golden handshake on the basis 1+2 to those employees who wish to.Discontinue their service such employees shall opt for this facility if so desired through their C.B.A. Within a period of two months of the take over by the party of the second part. This payment shall be made within 40 days of the option received." (Page 4).
12. Representative of the workers also referred to settlement, dated 3-3-1993 (Annexure A/6, pp. 165-175 of R&P in Case No,1 of 1995). By this agreement, it was inter alia, undertaken by the management that the dues of the workers undergo golden handshake including gratuity, will be paid within the time specified therein.
13. He also referred to agreement,. Dated 25-1-1994 (at page 139 of R&P in Case No,9 of 1995) between Hydari Ghee Industries, the applicants and the workers of Hydari Ghee Industries.
14. The management, having failed to honour its commitment, the workers approached the Deputy Director Labour (Conciliation) Hyderabad, who, after calling the management and the workers, drew up the agreement, dated 25-1-1994, which was signed by S. Farhat Ali, Labour Welfare Officer Hydari Ghee Industries Limited and as many as ten workers. It was also signed by Deputy Director Labour (Conciliation), Hyderabad, putting his round seal and date 25-1-1995, thereunder this is a conciliation agreement arrived at between the management and the workers through the efforts of the Government Agency i,e, the Deputy Director Labour (Conciliation), Hyderabad. Under this agreement, it was clearly agreed that the workers will receive their dues i,e, golden handshake and provident fund on or before 10-4-1994, but the management did not act upon this conciliation agreement too.
15. It, therefore, appears that the learned counsel for the management did not place full facts. He simply ignored all the agreements between the parties, as referred to above except the first one, between the Committee. He also simply ignored the letters, written by the management, dated 8th March, 1993 (Annexure A/2 of Original Case No,9 of 1995), addressed to Muhammad Ramzan which amounts to settlement entered into between the workers individually as well, whereby they were relieved of their jobs under Golden Hand Shake. The letter, for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: ' Hydari Ghee Industries Ltd., P/5, S.I.T.E., ' P.O. Box No,101, Hyderabad.
' No,HGIL/ADMN/001 8th March, 1993 ' Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Shamshuddin ' Dear Sir, ' Please refer your application, dated 23-5-1992 opting for Golden Hand Shake Scheme.
' We are pleased to inform you that keeping in view your long association with Hyderi Industries Limited and the valuable 'service rendered by you, the management has decided to entertain your request and relieve you from service under Golden Hand Shake Scheme as per the agreement, dated 15-10-1991 executed between Privatization Commission, Government of Pakistan and All Pakistan State Enterprises Workers' Action Committee.
' You are, therefore, hereby informed that you will stand relieved from service w,e,f, 10-3-1993 (A.N.).
You are advised to please collect your dues plus the additional amount of Golden Hand Shake equal to 4 (four) months' gratuity for every completed year of service from Accounts Department in full and final settlement of your dues. Payment of dues will be reposed by 10th of April, 1993.
' The agreement of Hydari Ghee Industries Limited wishes you good luck and successful completion of your future plans.
' Thanking you.
' Your faithfully, ' For Hydari Ghee Industries Ltd., (Sd.) 8-3-93 (Muhammad Ahmed Shaikh), ' Secretary to the Board/Manager (Audit & Corp. Affairs.)"
' Learned counsel for the management also failed to make any mention of the cheques having been issued by the management in payment of the dues of the workers, which are available on record. All the cheques were dishonored. When it was inquired from the representative of workers what action did he take after the cheques were dishonored, he submitted that he went to the Court of Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but these workers were so poor as could not engage any counsel to persue the matter there because the respondents the Managing Director, happened to be very influential person and the Hyderabad administration concerned was under his thumb, which is evident from the fact that after passing of the decision, dated 30-7-1997, impugned in the above revisions, wherein it was inter alia, ordered that dues be recovered as land revenue, as submitted by the representative application was made to the concerned authority for attaching the property of the management, but to no avail in spite of the fact that there was no stay order, passed by this Tribunal on the above revisions.
16 In support of his submission that section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969 was not attracted, Mr. Rizvi, learned counsel for the management, placed his reliance on a number of cases namely Avalene Silk Mills v.
Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and 7 others. (1981 PLC 4) by a Single Bench of our own High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, referring to the Law of Contract and also case for Siemens (Pakistan) Employees' Union v. Siemens (Pakistan) Engineering Company and 2 others (1969 PLC 341) held that if a period of time in settlement is fixed by contract, the contract will automatically lapse after that period. In the second case reported as Hostellarie-De-France Staff and Workers' Union v.. Messrs Hostellarie- defiance (1983 PLC 1195) by the then Chairman of this Tribunal, it was held that, "benefits or rights conferred by settlement in the circumstances, could not be enforced for period after expiry of settlement itself". In the third case reported as Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. And another v. Irfan Ahmed (1999 PLC 391) by this Tribunal, it was held by me that the precondition for the maintainability of application under section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969 is the existence of any "Decision, award or settlement" by an Arbitrator, Labour Court and Tribunal which was completely lacking in the said case. The last case on the plea, as relied on by the learned counsel for the management, is reported as M/s. Tobacco International Ltd., Karachi v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 others (1993 PLC 87) by a Division Bench of our own High Court, relying on the case of Karachi Club v. Muhammad Farooq, decided on 6-8-1985 in C.P.
No,B-552 of 1981. Section 51 was interpreted as under:-- "It appears from the text 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."
17. All the four cases, referred to above, relate to different situations and circumstances and are distinguishable as such. In the instant case, there are more than one settlement between the workers and the management as well as workers and the management through Conciliator. The amounts are fully determined. No enquiry for determining the amounts due in terms of money was required in the instant case and, as such, the plea, advanced on behalf of the management, is misconceived and is repelled.
18. For the 'aforesaid discussion, the revision applications are misconceived and are dismissed accordingly.
19. The applicant management is directed to pay the dues of the respondents herein, within ten days from the date of this order, failing which, the respondents/workers will be entitled to seek their remedy, as provided in law for implementation.
20. Before parting with the matter it may be added that it seems to be a self-evident case of clear exploitation of poor labourers by capitalists' dominated society in the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan".
The employer needs to be reminded a hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhiwa-sallam) who commanded: "Pay the worker his wages before his perspiration does not dry". And each one of us should remember what Allah Almighty said in His Book in Surah Al- Tawbah, verse 105, translation whereof by A. Yousaf Ali, read us under:-- ' And say: "Work (righteousness): Soon will God observe your work. And His Apostle and the Believers: Soon will ye be brought back To the Knower of what is ' Hidden and what is open: ' Then will. He show you ' The truth of all that ye did."