1976 PLP 151 (PLC)

DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI Application No. 323 of 1969, decided on 13th June 1970. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)

S. O. No. 12(1), (5)-Workman retired from service on medical grounds-Employer directed to pay to retired employee wages in lieu of one month's notice of termination of services and gratuity for entire period of service at prescribed rate. The complainant Hukam Dad, the son of Fazal Din, who was formerly a Yardmaster employed by the Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi, which is under the administrative control of the respondent, i.e. the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi has instituted this complaint under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It has been Mentioned in the complaint that on the date 16-4-1956 the respondent employed the complainant and the respondent retired the complainant from service on the recommendations of a medical officer made on 10-1-1968, who had declared his opinion to the effect that the complainant was no longer fit for service. Consequently the complainant was retired from service on the date 2-2-1968. At the time of his retirement the complainant's monthly wages were Rs. 195. According to the terms and conditions of the complainant's service he was entitled to at least 30 days leave for every one year of service, and was also entitled to annual leave of 15 days on full pay and medical leave for 15 days on half average pay. Nevertheless the respondent never granted any leave to the complainant during any year of the complainant's service with the result that he fell ill from over-work and became unfit for service. As a matter of fact the complainant has complained that he was not regularly granted any weekly rest. According to the complainant's application the respondent owes the complainant his arrears of wages for a total period of 360 days. When the complainant wrote to the respondent asking for his gratuity and for wages in lieu of arrears of leave the complainant was informed in the reply that since this matter was a question of policy hence it would be referred to the Road Transport Cor poration, Lahore. The complainant then addressed a letter on the same subject to the Road Transport Corporation and a third letter on the 15th of June. 1969 to the respondent asking for his gratuity but on the date 25-8-1969 the appropriate clerk orally informed the complainant that no gratuity could be paid to him. As such conduct on the part of the res pondent's representative amounted to a cause of action, therefore, on the date 27-8-1969, the complainant sent a notice under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the 'West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to the respondent, to which the respondent, did not give any reply. As a matter of fact no further enquiry was made into the mater nor did any hearing take place. According to the reckoning of the complainant a total amount of Rs. 71,370 stood as arrears of pay due to the complainant from the respondent at the time of the institution of this complaint. The respondent, therefore, prayed that the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi, might be ordered by this Court to defray these amounts to the complainant. I have heard the arguments advanced by the representatives of both parties and have examined the relevant record. The complainant's representa tive bas contended before me that since it was the respondent who terminated the employment of a permanent workman like the complainant Hukam Dad, therefore, the complainant is entitled to one month's notice in writing or alternatively one month's notice in writing or alternatively one month's wage calculated on the basis of the average of wages earned by the complainant during the last three months of his employment. No argument has been brought forward to rebus this contention. Retiring a person is one form of terminating his employment. I, therefore, hold that the respondent shall pay as quickly as possible one-month's wages calculated on the basis of the average of wages earned by the complainant during the last three months of his service. Furthermore in view of the mandatory provisions of clause (5) of Standing Order 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the respondent shall in addition to the wages payable to the complainant under clause (1) of Standing Order No. 1 of Standing Order No. 12 of the same Ordinance, be paid gratuity equivalent to fifteen days wages for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Even if the contention of the respondent s representative is accepted and it is held that the complainant is not entitled to any gratuity under the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Rules, 1959, inasmuch as the complainant has been appointed by the District Manager, G. T. S. Rawalpindi after the complainant had attained the age of 40 years. Yet the clear-cut provisions of clause (5) of Standing Order No. 12 of the above-mentioned Ordinance leave no choice to the respondent's employer in the matter of grant of gratuity to a workman whose services have been terminated for reasons other than misconduct . I, therefore, accept this complaint and direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Hukam Dad, in addition to the wages payable to the complainant under clause (1) of Standing Order No. 12, gratuity equivalent to fifteen days wages for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months.