1984 PLC 383 (PLP)

Laws Cited

Representation

• S. F. H. Rizvi for Appellant.
• M. Bashir Awan for Respondents.
• The above application of the respondent was contested by the appellant on only legal issues because the facts pleaded in the application were not refuted. The learned Authority after hearing the arguments of the Advocates of the parties decided that the respondents were entitled to the relief claimed by them and in the result allowed their application and hence this appeal.
• I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the R&P also. Mr. M. Bashir Awan learned Advocate of respondents filed written arguments also which I have gone through.
• The learned Advocate of the appellants has contended that the respondents were civil servants and as such the learned lower Court or this Court has no jurisdiction. The learned Advocate of the respondents on the other hand held that the respondents were admittedly borne on work- charged establishment and they have claimed the wages in the nature of House Rent Allowance which comes within the definition of "Wages" and as such the lower Court as well as this Court has definitely jurisdiction. He referred to a case-law reported in 1980 P L C 1123. He further maintained that the respondents are not civil servants and they are specifically excluded from the definition of civil servants. The learned Advocate of the appellants could not controvert the above contentions of the learned Advocate of the respondents. I also feel that the respondents cannot be termed as civil servants because they are borne on work-charged establishment and as such the lower Court as well as this Court is quite competent to decide the cases of the respondents. According to me the learned lower Court has rightly held that the application of the respondent was maintainable and the lower Court has jurisdiction in the matter. I find no fault with the above finding of the learned lower Court.
• The learned Advocate of the appellants during the course of argu ments tried to produce a letter, dated 8th August, 1978 without any application under Order XLI, rule 27, C. P. C. and this document was also not produced in the lower Court. He further contended that on the basis of above letter the earlier Notification of 21st February, 1.978, on the basis of which the respondent-workers claimed the relief, was withdrawn and in support of his argument he cited P L D 1980 Pesh. 128 and P L D 1969 S C 407.
• The learned Advocate of the respondents rebutted his above conten tion that the authorities cited by the learned Advocate for the appellants are not applicable with the facts of the present case. . He further maintained that the very letter, dated 8th August, 1978 which is sought to be produced clearly shows that the Notification, dated 21st February, 1978 was acted upon and duly implemented. The learned Advocate of the Respondents further maintained that the production of the document at appellate stage cannot be allowed and looked into and referred to a latest case law reported in 1983 S C M R 367, wherein it is held "Petitioner wants interference with order of the High Court on the basis of material not produced before High Court petition dismissed in the circumstances of the case". He also quoted a case-law reported in P L D 1976 Kar. 811, wherein it is held "Appellate Court should no, travel outside the record of lower Court".
• I quite agree with the contention and the case-law cited by the learned Advocate of the respondents that the Notification, dated 8th August, 1978 cannot be looked into at this stage. Moreso when the Notification, dated 21st February, 1978 has been acted upon and duly implemented. The learned Advocate of the appellants lastly contended that the House Rent Allowance is excluded from the definition of wages to which the Advocate of the respondents replied that the House Rent Allowance/Conveyance Allowance is included in the definition of wages and he cited in support of his argument, the following case law ; (1) 1980 P L C 90, (2) 1981 P L C 800, (3) 1983 P L 102. I have gone through the above-quoted rulings and find that they support the view of the learned Advocate of the respondents that the respondents are entitled to a relief claimed by them. The learned Advocate of the respondents further added that the admitted position is that the respondents are getting their wages in the National Scale of Pay and according to rule 13 of the above said rules, and even otherwise, according to him, the respondents are etitled to the allowance mentioned in the rules. It would be proper to reproduce rule 13 which reads as under:-
• The learned Advocate of the respondents further contended that the above rules were duly approved and assented by the Governor of Sind and admittedly made applicable in the case of respondents, and therefore the benefits available under the Rule, to the workers, cannot be taken away by any Officer of the Department, and in support of his arguments he cited the case-law reported in P L D 1983 Lab. 246, and relevant at page 250, and also 1980 P L C 361, wherein it was held that the:
• The learned Advocate of the appellants did not make any argument with regard to the points of locus standi of the respondents and mis -joinder of necessary party although these points were mentioned in the memo of appeal. Therefore these points need not be dismissed. The learned Advocate of the respondents lastly referred to a decision of this Court in Appeal No. 25/82 decided on 21st December, 1982. Government of Sind v. Azeem Bux and others which reads as under :

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree