1994 PLP 1799 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above petitions for leave to appeal as they involve common question of facts and law and they are directed against the judgments dated 15‑2‑1992 and 14‑3‑1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order/judgments passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan upon the private respondent's application under section 15(2) of the Act and the petitioner's appeals, respectively, dismissing the same and maintaining the above orders and judgments of the Authority and the Labour Court.

2. The brief facts are that the private respondents filed above applications for the recovery of the various amounts mentioned therein on the basis of averment that the same were illegally deducted from their wages, though previously the same were paid to them pursuant to the order of the Authority and the Labour Court. The above applications were resisted by the petitioner inasmuch as written statements were filed, in which inter alia it was pleaded that the applications were not maintainable, the cases did not relate to increments but promotion, which were not within the jurisdiction of the Authority. It was also pleaded that since the respondents were drawing more than Rs.1,000 per month they were not `workers' within the definition of the Act. On merits also the applications were contested.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Authority framed the following five issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the application is not maintainable in view of objection No.l of the respondent in the reply statement? O.P.R. (2) Whether petition is barred by time? O.P.R. (3) Whether the applicant has no cause of action? O.P.R. (4) Whether the applicant is entitled to the claim, if so, to what extent? O.P.P. (5) Relief. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Authority by the impugned orders, decided all the legal issues against the petitioner and on merits, it was held that the private respondents were entitled to the various amounts mentioned in the orders.

4. Against the above orders, the petitioner filed appeals which were dismissed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan. Thereupon, the petitioner filed writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, which have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through the impugned judgments/orders. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.

5. In support of the above petitions, Mr. Fazal‑i‑Hussain, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing for the petitioner, has urged as follows:‑‑ (i) That para (II) of the Pay Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, has been misapplied by the Courts below as the same relates to promotion and not to the revision of pay scales, which was the case in hand; (ii) That the impugned orders/judgments are contrary to the law enunciated by this Court in the case of Akbar Ali and others v. Senior Administrative Officer, Pakistan Railways and another (1992 SCMR 1341) and unreported judgment dated 9‑6‑1991 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 674 of 1988 (The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan v. Sardar Muhammad and others); (iii) That the learned Labour Court has relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in a writ petition, though in subsequent writ petitions, the other learned Judges have taken a contrary view.

6. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the contentions, Leave is, accordingly, granted. A.A./P‑231/S Leave granted.