' This an appeal against the decision dated 30.12-1976 of Punjab Labour Court, No, 2, Lahore.
2. Mushtaq Ahmad, appellant was employed as a Store-Keeper by Punjab Agricultural Development & Supplies Corporation, Lahore in October 1975. He was charge-sheeted for misconduct vide show-cause notice dated 4-9-75 issued by the Regional Manager, Punjab Agricultural Development Corporation. Without conducting any inquiry or affording any opportunity to the appellant, the Assistant Manager, Sheikhpura of Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation withheld the salaries of the appellant for the months of July and August 1976.
It was also alleged that be made illegal deduction from overtime wages of the appellant for the year 1973.74 in flagrant disregard of the provisions of law. On 14-9-1976 the appellant served a grievance notice under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, claiming wages for the months of July and August 1976, which were due to him and Rs, 502.36 on account of illegal deduction from his overtime wages during the year 1973-74. When no action was taken by the respondents, he filed a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was dismissed by the Labour Court vide decision under appeal.
3. Aggrieved by the above decision, Mushtaq Ahmed, appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Since West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance No, VIII of 1969 is applicable in this case, the appellant in his petition under section 25 A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had brought his grievance in respect of a right guaranteed or secured to him under section 13 of the aforementioned Ordinance.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that since section 12(1) of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Authority to hear and decide claims arising out of delay in payment or non-payment of wages including overtime wages, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any such claim. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in the case, Moideem v. Presding Officer, Second Sind Labour Court and 2 others. At this stage it will be convenient to reproduce sections 12(1) and 13 of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969. Section 12 reads as under :- ' Government may, by notification In the official Gazette, appoint any person to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of delay in the payment or non- payment of the wages of employees in that area.
' Section 13 reads as under :- Bar of suits.-No Court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages in se far as the sum so claimed.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) could have been recovered by an application under section 12.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that the word "Court" in section 13 of the Ordinance means a "Civil Court" and not a Labour Court and as such the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the appellant. In this connection he referred to sections 15(1) and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, IV of 1936. Section 15(1) read as under :- The Provincial Government may. By notification in the official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or non-payment of the dues relating to provident fund or gratuity payable under any law or delay in the payment of wages, of persons employed or paid in that area.
' Section 22 of the Act reads as under :- ' Bar of Suits-No Court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages or of any deductions from wages in so far as the sum so claimed.
(a)
(b)
(c) ..
(d) could have been recovered by an application under section 15.
7. In support of his contention he relied on the following judgments of the High Courts :- ' In the case, Messrs Luxury House (Firm), Dacca v. First Labour Court, East Pakistan, Dacca and others it was observed t- "Mr. Islam had further contended that section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 operates as a bar to the entertainment by a Labour Court of any claim for payment of wages. This contention is untenable, for section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act puts no such bar so far as a Labour Court constituted under the provisions of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 is concerned, Section 22 is as follows: ' Evidently the section bars a Court to entertain any suit for the recovery of wages and the "Court" referred to appears to us to be a "Civil Court" and not a Court of the special description as the Labour Court. The proceeding before the Labour Court under section 25 of the Standing Orders Act is not a suit. In our opinion, therefore, section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act has no application to the present case."
' In the case, Md. Qasim Lati v. Md. Shomsuddin and another it was observed :-1 2 3 "The principle behind the labour laws including the Industrial Disputes Act is the recognition of collective bargaining. Any wage fixed by the award of a tribunal or by a conciliation proceeding must necessarily mean the wages which, though not expressly agreed upon between the parties, must be taken to have been impliedly agreed upon between the parties. At the time the employer enters into a contract with the employees and fixes certain remuneration. Both the employer and the employee know that whatever be the contract in express terms in regard to remuneration, the employer is bound to pay the amount of remuneration mentioned in an award of a tribunal or fixed as per settlement in a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the employee is entitled to that remuneration. The minimum wages fixed by the award or in conciliation proceedings are well within the definition of "wages" given in the Act."
' It was further observed t-- "Conceding that there is a remedy provided for in the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 for recovery of any dues from an employer under an award or decision or there may be some penalty provided for in the Industrial Disputes Act, the remedy provided for by the Payment of Wages Act is still available to the claimant from whose wages deductions have been made by the employer. If two remedies are provided, it is open to the person aggrieved to make his election, and if the claimants have chosen to seek the forum provided for in the Payment of Wages Act, it cannot possibly he held that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, should refuse to exercise his jurisdiction under the Act."
' In the case, Americana Dry Cleaners, Karachi v. Abdul Karim it was observed:- "Mr. S. H. Chishti, the learned Representative for the respondent, contends that an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance cannot be said to be a suit for recovery of wages. There is much force in this contention. Labour Courts are not Civil Courts. They have only certain powers of a Civil Court in certain matters. I would hold that the application under section 25-A of the Ordinance was maintainable."
' In the case, General Steel Tools Company, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore and 2 others it was held that the Labour Court is not barred to entertain a claim for payment of wages.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the words of sections 12 and 13(a) of West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance are almost the same as the words of sections 25 and 22(4) of the Payment of Wages Act, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for a claim for recovery of wages, which had been withheld and as such the aforementioned rulings would be applicable.
9. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel the meaning of word "Court" has not been discussed and as such that judgment is not an B authority for the proposition which was not considered in it. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in the case, Mohammad Ismail All Charan v. Pakpor Ceramics Limited.
10. In view of the above, I hold that a Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for recovery of wages and as such the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is rejected. The appeal will now be heard on merits. 1976 PLC 517 PLD 196) Dacca 410 AIR 1957 Pat. 683 1976 PLC 575 PLD 1976 Lah. 528 PLD 1973 Kw. 4914 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6