1978 PLP 404 (PLC)

2. In shoat, the facts of the case are that Muhammad Irshad respondent was employed as Goods Clerk‑II at Sargohda. The appellant deducted the following amount from his salary for the period of: l. January, 1572. Ra.73. 00

2. February 1972. Re. 128 .00

3. March, 1972. Rs. 128. 00

4. April, 1972. Re. 128. 00

5. May, 1972. Rs. 128. 00 Total: R s. 585.00

2. The main grievance of the respondent before the Authority was that the impugned deduction for use and occupation of the residence provided by appellant‑Railway was illegal and against rules. It could only recover Rs. 6.66 per month. The appellant contested this application before the learned lover Court. After recording evidence, the learned Authority found that the impugned deduction made by the appellant was illegal and conse quently five times compensation was allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on three grounds namely that the direction of the Authority under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act was against law and facts, tire evidence had not been properly appreciated and the learned Authority failed to consider the plea of the appellant that the claim was barred by time and the compensation was also arbitrary.

4. I have perused the record in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the claim was put in by the respondent on 7‑2‑1976 whereas the cause of action accrued to him in the year, 1972. The record shows that the appellant moved an application for amendment of his written statement and this application was rejected by the learned Authority vide its order dated 5‑5‑1176. It was however, remarked in the order that this point shall be considered when the final arguments are addressed. I am of the view that this observation is superfluous. Even if no objection is taken as to the limitation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the cause of action has been maintained within a period prescribed by law. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the rules relied upon by the appellant were repugnant to the provisions of sections 7 and 11 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the impugned order was, therefore, without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law. . This respondent could challenge this deduction without being hit by limitation. In this connection reliance has been placed upon P L D 1974 S C

1. It has been held as under: "Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 7 & 11 and Pakistan Railway Establishment Code, S. 157 Rules framed by General Manager, P. W. R. under S. 157 of the Code for assessment of rent in respect of accommodation provided to Railway employees‑Repugnant to provisions of Ss. 7(2) (d) & 11 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑Railway authorities are not entitled to deduct more amount than what has been provided in Ss. 7 (2) (d) & 11 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, even if occupation of employee is later declared unauthorised for some reason." I am, therefore, convinced that the appellant could not deduct more amount than what had been provided in subsection (7), sub‑clause (2) (d) and section 11 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The impugned deduction was, therefore, illegal and without lawful authority. I, therefore, reject A both the contentions of the appellant teat the petition for claim was barred by time and deduction made by the Railway Authority was in accordance with law.

6. Next point urged is this was unjustified. I do not agree with thin contention because the Authority is armed with the power to allow 10 times compensation, which is the maximum admissible under the Payment of Wages Act in the instant case, the learned Authority has allowed compensation only at five times. I do not think that the discretion exercised by to Learned Authority is arbitrary. In these circumstances no interference is called for. I also proceed to reject this contention

7. In view of what has been said above the appeal has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.