Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 1328 1990 SLD 1328 1990 PLC 258
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-176 of 1980, decided on 21st November, 1988.
AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND ABDUL REHMAN KAZI, J
Choudhary Rashid Ahmed for Petitioner. Mohsin Tayabaly for
Respondent No. 1.

PRINCE CLASS WORKS WELFARE UNION

VS

PRINCE CLASS WORKS WELFARE UNION vs SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-- ---S. 50---Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 (I of 1974), S.3(4), proviso (a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Benefit as to increase in wages under settlement is liable to be adjusted---Payment on account of cost of living under settlement or award, held, could be set off against amount payable under subsection (4) of S. 3 of Act---Employee cannot get double payment of cost of living allowance but is entitled to difference in case under settlement or. an award amount payable is less than the amount granted under provisions of the Act. (b) Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 (I of 1974)--- ---S. 3(4)(a)---Industrial. Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 50---Payment of increased wages cannot be linked with increase in production. JUDGMENT AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 18-10-1981, passed by learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal upon an application under section 50 of I.R.O., filed by respondent 2, for interpretation of settlement dated 10-6-1981, as to the liability to the demand of cost of living allowance under subsection (4) of section 3 of the Employee's Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, which was added by Ordinance No. 32 of 1980, gazetted on 26-0-1980. The learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal has held in the impugned order that the benefit as to the increase in the wages under the above settlement (hereinafter referred to as the settlement) is liable to be adjusted. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition. In support of the above petition, Choudhary Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the other terms of the settlement which indicated that the increase in the cost of living but factually the petitioner has made certain promises as to the increase in the production etc. In order to appreciate the above contention, it may be advantageous to reproduce subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act, which provides as follows:-- "3(4). In addition to the cost of living allowance admissible under subsections…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492