2013 PLP 229 (PLC)

HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).

The petitioner-company filed instant revision petition against the order dated 10-2-2009 passed by Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and judgment dated 6-3-2010 passed learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan whereby Authority under the Payment of Wages Act accepted the claim of the respondent and Learned Presiding Officer, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the instant revision petition are that respondent filed an application against Factory Manager Nauroz Associates (Pvt.) Ltd., Vehari Raod, Multan before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Multan for the payment of his dues withheld by the petitioner i.e. gratuity equal to 21 months Rs.90,300/-, 25 days Salary for the month of January 2006 Rs.3583/-, one day over time pay Rs.286/-. 14 days annual leaves pay Rs.2006/-, one month notice pay Rs.4300/-, dearness allowance Rs.1800/-, total Rs.102,275/- with ten times compensation i.e. Rs.10,22,750/-contending thereby that he was appointed in Nauroz Associates Pvt. Ltd. Mills on 24-10-1984 as a Jobber in Khatta Frame Shift-C at the salary of Rs.4300/- per month. He participated in Trade Union activities and joined Workers Union on 4-6-2005. He supported the same in referendum held on 23-7-2005 in which workers Union succeeded due to which the appellant become annoyed with respondent. Firstly the petitioner issued a false charge sheet against respondent, respondent further contended that on the evening of 25-1-2006 when his duty hours were over, he was got arrested by the appellant through the police at Mills gate at 10-00 p.m. and he was detained in Police Station Mumtazabad Multan where on 26-1-2006 the Factory Manger, Nauroz Associates along with his Associates and police obtained thumb impressions and signatures of respondent over some blank papers, vouchers and receipts etc. and then lie was released. He further pleaded that the appellant closed the Mills gate on him without paying him his legal dues mentioned above. The respondent filed an application before Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for redressal of his grievance.

4. The respondent/petitioner filed written statement before Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and raised preliminary objections i.e. firstly the respondent submitted 24 hours resignation on 27-1-2006 and received his full dues, so he was estopped to file application by his words and conduct, secondly, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application with regard to gratuity and thirdly, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 could not grant ten times compensation to the respondent as Jobber in Khatta frame Shift-C on 24-10-1984 and also denied the other allegations levelled in the petition. In view of pleadings of the parties the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 framed eight issues including relief.

5. The respondent-Muhammad Ali entered in the witness box and tendered documents i.e copy of Mills Card Exh.P1, copy of Social Security Card Exh.P2, copy of EOBI Card Exh.P3, charge-sheet dated 18-1-2006 Exh.P4, postal receipts Exh.P5, Exh.P/5/l to Exh.P5/2 in support of his applications. On the other hand Shahadat Ali Khan, Factory Manager RW-1 and Naz Mohy-ud-Din Shah RW-2 appeared and tendered documents i.e. Affidavit executed by Muhammad Ali respondent Ex. R-1 and vouchers Exh.R-2/1 to Exh.R2/9 in the support of their contentions. After hearing of both the parties Learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 Multan vide judgment dated 10-2-2009 decreed the claim of respondent to the tune of Rs.100,475/- directing the appellant to deposit the said amount with Authority within thirty days. The said amount was deposited by the appellant with the Authority through Pay Order No.1418481 dated 25-3-2009 and the appeal was filed by the appellant on 26-3-2009 assailing the judgment dated 10-2-2009 passed by Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Multan. Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 6-3-2010. Petitioner-company has filed instant revision petition before this Tribunal assailing the judgment dated 6-3-2010.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 did not consider documentary evidence produced by petitioner and vouchers were signed by respondent which are taken into consideration in which Hashmat Ali has admitted that he borrowed money in advance Rs.80,000/-(Eighty thousand).

7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that judgment of Labour Court and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are based on reasoning, both courts below rightly discarded vouchers as the petitioner got signed on blank vouchers and subsequently filled it according to his whims and wishes. Petitioner did not produce ledger book wherein entries of advance made to respondent has been entered. The entries in the vouchers are fictitious and fabricated which were forcefully got signed blank at Police Station Mumtazabad. The petitioner withheld best documentary evidence in shape of his lodger book where such entries of income and expenditures are made. The respondent did not get any money in advance from the petitioner. 9. 1 have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and perused the file minutely.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner could not controvert the question put by this Court why petitioner did not produce ledger book of the company in the trial court where all the financial income and expenditures are entered. The argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent carries weight that petitioner withheld best evidence in the form of ledger book where the entries of income and expenditures are entered. The petitioner could prove through ledger book, if amount was paid as advance to the respondent which petitioner badly failed. The petitioner had got signed blank vouchers which subsequently were filled. The respondent is low paid employee and employer who is always capital minded cannot extend advance of Rs.80,000/-(Eighty thousand) to a low paid employee. The contentions raised by the petitioner are against the record of the lower court. The concurrent findings of both courts below cannot be disturbed unless misreading and non-reading is pointed-out in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for petitioner failed to point-out any illegality or exercise of jurisdiction which was not vested with the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or Appellate Authority exercised jurisdiction which was not vested with him. There is no flaw in the judgment passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan which is hereby upheld. HBT/6/PLT Revision Petition dismissed.