DECISION ' This case has arisen from petition filed on behalf of Messrs Shaheen Airport Services on 15-11-2000 praying therein for interpretation of the order passed by this Tribunal on 24-4-1988.
2. The background of the case is that the services of respondent Khalid Naseem who was employed in the Establishment of the applicants Messrs Shaheen Airport Services were terminated.
The order of his termination was challenged by way of grievance petition filed before Sindh Labour Court No,IV but his petition was dismissed. He filed appeal against the order of Labour Court before this Tribunal which allowed his appeal vide its order, dated 24-4-1988, "directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with only 30% of back benefits forthwith". It is this order which has become subject of controversy between the parties, calling for interpretation. The applicants Messrs Shaheen Airport Services have approached this Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application No,116 of 2000 for the required interpretation.
3. The Representative of the respondent Mr. Siddique Malik as well as the Advocate of the applicants have submitted written arguments in support of their respective versions. I have gone through the said arguments and have also heard the said counsel.
4. Subsection (1) of section 50, I.R.O. Provides that if any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of an award or settlement, it shall be referred to the Tribunal constituted under this Ordinance. Subsection (2) reads as under:-- "The Tribunal to which the matter is referred under subsection (1) shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard decide the matter and its decision shall be final and binding on the parties."
5. It would appear from the above provisions of law that only award or settlement is referred to the Tribunal for the interpretation. I am doubtful if the Tribunal's own decision can be referred for interpretation. If it is so referred the Tribunal's interpretation would amount to review of its own decision which I believe is not permissible under the law.
6. The learned counsel of the respondent' has also raised the point of limitation of course is not without force. The decision sought to be interpreted was delivered about 14 years before filing of the petition for interpretation. The decision to be interpretated was delivered as far back as 24-4- 1988 and the petition seeking its interpretation has been filed on 15-11-2000, therefore, I am of the view that the petition is also hit by laches.
' Lastly interpretation is needed only when there is any doubt or difficulty about any award or settlement. As stated earlier the order sought to be interpretated was directing reinstatement of the respondent in service with only 30% of the back benefits forthwith. This order is clear on face of it. It has two parts namely first part speaks of reinstatement of the respondent and second part deals with payment of 30% of back benefits. The word "back benefits" clearly shows benefits he had acquired up to the date of reinstatement. Therefore, there is hardly any doubt or difficulty in understanding the above both parts of the order. Moreover after the decision of the Tribunal sought to be interpretated the decisions of the High Court as well as Supreme Court have also been given. There is hardly any merit in the petition under reference which is their disposed accordingly.