1990 PLP 684 (PLC)

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance III of 1969), S. 38(3‑a)‑ Revision against order of Labour Court in appellate jurisdiction under S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑‑Claim for overtime wages of Railway employee on ground that he was continuous worker but instead of 8 hours duty 12 hours duty was taken from him‑‑‑Duty Roster produced on behalf of Railways Administration not challenged as having not been issued by competent authority‑‑‑Held, If from the very beginning employee was treated as intermittant and his claim was that he was wrongly so treated the question was to be gone into by the Authority whether it had jurisdiction to declare him as continuous worker‑‑‑Order of Court below was set aside in revision and case remanded to Authority for recording its decision whether it was competent to declare employee as continuous and not intermittant worker. Respondent No. 1 in person. The above‑captioned three revision petitions report that the order dated 8‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer; Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. As the three revisions involve common questions of fact and law and arise from the same impugned order, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The facts of the cases are that the respondents claimed overtime for a specified period on the ground that they were continuous workers but 12 hours duty was taken from them. The claim was for overtime for four hours daily. In the written statement an objection was raised that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction. The Authority held that since no competent authority had issued any declaration that the respondents were intermittant workers, therefore, 12 hours duty could not be taken from them. The duty roster was produced by the petitioner which was not challenged to have not been issued by the competent authority. The learned authority has not recorded any finding on the point whether it was competent to declare that the respondents were not intermittant workers and were continuous workers. This was not the case of the respondents that prior to the period for which they claimed overtime they were treated as continuous workers and that without any declaration that they had become intermittant workers, 12 hours duty was taken from them. If from the very beginning the respondents were treated as intermittant workers and their case was that they were wrongly so considered, the question was to be gone into and decided by the learned Authority whether it had jurisdiction to declare the respondents as continuous workers, but the Authority has not recorded any finding thereon. Since such a point was not clearly raised in the written statement although it was said that the Authority had no jurisdiction, I refrain from giving any final decision on the point in revisional jurisdiction. Since the question touches the jurisdiction of the learned Authority, it is necessary that it is determined once for all.

3. As a result, I accept the revision petitions and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned Courts below, remand the cases to the learned Authority for recording its decision whether it is competent to declare the respondents as continuous workers and not intermittant workers. 1f the finding of the learned Authority is that the respondents are continuous workers, fresh order of payment of overtime wages may be passed. A.E./698/Lb. P Case remanded.