The private respondents are the employees of the petitioner. They filed applications before respondent No,1 claiming cost of living allowance for the period 1-7-1985 to 3-6-1986 @ 13.15% on monthly wages and for the period 1-7-1986 to 30-1-1991@ 18% on monthly wages. The claim for compensation @ 10 times was also made. The applications were resisted by the petitioner with objection that they are time-barred and that the relief has already been granted to the private respondents under various settlements arrived at between the petitioner and collective bargaining agent. It was averred that the said allowance does not fall within the definition of wages under the Payment of Wages Act. The applications were decided vide order dated 30-4-1994 of respondent No,4 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned respondent No,2 on. 13-9- 1994. The recovery proceedings have accordingly been set afoot.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No,1 had no jurisdiction in the matter 'in view of the proviso to section 7 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. Relies on the case of Zain Packaging Industries Limited. v. Abdul Rashid and others (1994 SCM R 2222). The respondents have been proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have given some thought to the contention of the learned counsel and I find that the same is without any force. As would be apparent from the contents of para.1 of the writ petition itself the applications were filed by private respondents under section 12(2) of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 before respondent No,1, who is an authority appointed in terms of section 12(1) of the said Ordinance under section 6(a) of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 where cost of living allowance of any employee is withheld or delayed such worker is to apply to the respondent No,1 being an authority appointed under section 12(1) of the said Ordinance 1969.
I may further note here that it is in terms of section 12(6) of the said Ordinance of 1969 that an appeal lies against the direction issued by respondents No,1 to the District Court and in the present case admittedly the appeal was filed before respondent No,2 who is District Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has also clarified this matter in the said judgment of "Zain Packaging Industries Ltd." at page 11 of the report. Needless to state that the other objections taken in the writ petition as to the previous settlement does not hold any water in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Pakistan National Produce Company Ltd. v. Workers' Union P.N.P Rice Mills, Dhaukkal and others 1992 SCM R 1137). No other point has been urged. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.