1987 PLP 287 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 15(2), (3) & 17‑‑Order of Authority holding claim application as non-maintainable‑--Such order, not amounting to a direction as contemplated by subsections (2) & (3) of S. 15, held, was not appealable. R.M. Mushtaq for Appellant. A. Ghani Khan for Respondent. The applicant was employed with respondent during the period commencing from 5‑10‑1970 and ending on 23‑11‑1978. He was said to have been asked to submit his resignation from service which he did on 26‑7‑1978 and finally he was relieved on 23‑11‑1978. According to him his salary was Rs.932.50 plus Rs.200, in all Rs.1,132.52 p.m. According to him, he was not paid his wages from 1‑11‑1978 to 24‑ii‑1978 and also notice pay for one month. He was also refused gratuity for 8 years equivalent to 160 days and other dues as specifically detailed in his application. Accordingly, he approached the learned Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad vide his application No.55 of 1981 on 12‑5‑1981 claiming a sum of Rs.10,215 with compensation etc. This claim was seriously opposed on behalf of the respondent mainly on the ground of non‑maintainability of the petition. According to the respondent admittedly applicant was drawing more than Rs.1,000 p.m. and so the learned Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain his claim. Rest of the contents of the application were also denied. After evidence the application of the appellant was dismissed on 21‑2‑1985 and which order has now been assailed in this appeal. I have heard Mr. R.M. Mushtaq, Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the material on record and the legal proposition involved herein. The only point which poses for consideration in this case is whether the learned. Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter and whether the findings of the lower Court can be impugned before this Court. Mr. Mushtaq, submits that the appellant was drawing less than Rs.1,000 p.m. and Rs.200 which were included in the basic salary while deciding the question of jurisdiction were being paid to the appellant only towards conveyance allowance for coming from Karachi to Dhaboji. According to him, this amount of Rs.200 should not have been added to the basic salary and so the application was maintainable. He also submits that the respondent did not produce any record to prove the actual wages being paid to the appellant. When Mr. Mushtaq was confronted with the pleadings and the evidence of the appellant wherein it was specifically stated that the appellant was drawing Rs.1,132 p.m. Mr. Mushtaq could not satisfactorily answer the same. He also conceded that the appellant never asked the respondent to produce any document to prove the wages of the appellant and if it is so it cannot be urged that the respondent was bound to produce the documents and if documents were not produced, adverse inference can be raised. In fact the appellant repeatedly asserted that he was drawing Rs.1,132 p.m. Even in his cross‑examination he repeated that Rs.200 were being paid to him extra for coming from Karachi to Dhaboji. This amount of Rs.200 was thus, towards conveyance and the said amount is to be considered as part of wages. Accordingly, on the pleadings of the appellant himself, learned Authority has rightly held his application as non‑maintainable. His findings are, therefore, not exceptionable and do not require any interference. Besides the above, I find that the appeal itself is not maintainable for the simple reason that the impugned order does not amount to a direction as contemplated by subsections (2) and (3) of section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, inasmuch as the application has been dismissed as not maintainable. The appeal is permissible only against a direction. This appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Accordingly, it is dismissed. S. Q. / 876/ Lb Appeal dismissed.