1976 PLP 239 (PLC)

This order will dispose of an application filed by Mr. Muhammad Ishaq A1vi son of Hakim Muhammad Yaqoob, resident of H. No. 2, Street No. 11, Dev Samaj Road, Ram Nagar, Lahore v. the Chief Engineer, P. H. E. Department. 11 Lytton Road, Lahore for the payment of illegally deducted wages for the period from 11‑10‑69 to 13‑5‑70 amounting to Rs. 1,228.1 alongwith compensation. Briefly the facts of the case at‑e that the petitioner was employed by the employer as works supervisor on monthly wages of Rs. 172.50. His service. were terminated by the S. D. O. Office of the Sub‑division No. 1 on 11‑10‑

69. On his representation the orders of the S. D. O. were held to be illegal and the petitioner was re‑instated with immediate effect but he has not been paid wages for the period from 11‑10‑69 to 13‑5‑

70. Despite service of notice of this Court the respondent did not appear nor did be send any Representative to attend to the proceeding of this case. The case was, therefore, proceeded ex parte against the respondent, the following issues were framed in the case: (1) Whether the application is within time. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the claim, if so, to what extent. (3) Relief. Petitioner appearing as his own witness has stated that on his illegal termination by S. D. O. of the Sub‑division No. 1 on 11‑10‑69 he filed a departmental appeal before the respondent which was accepted and the petitioner was re‑instated by the Chief Engineer, PHE Deptt. Since the petitioner has been diligently pursuing his case departmentally, and the result of his representation was communicated to him on 25‑7‑73, the cause of action therefore, arose on 25‑7‑73, the application is, therefore within time. As the Public H. E. Deptt. carries on the work of laying of sewerage, drains, pumping out water, installation of tube‑wells, supply of water, construction of water reservoirs, the above said establishments are, therefore, covered within the definition factory as defined in section 2(j) of the Factories Act are applicable to the persons employed in these establishments. The petitioner has placed reliance on P L D 1963 S C

340. The facts of the case are not on all fours with the instant case. However, P L D 1973 S C 559 wherein it has been held: Wages as defined in section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, does not necessarily mean earned wages. Where an employee to whom the Act applies, is ready and willing to render service but the employer is not affording him opportunity to render such service, the employee is entitled to wages unless a deduction is expressly allowed under the Act. Section 7 of the Act provides that notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of section 47 of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890) the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deduction of any kind except through authority by or under this Act. The impart of the above provision is both excepting and pre emptory which makes the legislative intendment clear beyond any doubt that in relation to the class of person to which the Act applies, it will not countenance any deduction in wages unless a particular case is squarely covered by any of the clauses in sub‑section (2) of section

7. Besides, the statute is remedial in its object and it is well established principle of interpretation that remedial statute should be construed in manner so as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief or else it would frustrate the legislative intendment. This is all the mot so, after Supreme Court decision in Pakistan v. Mrs. A. V. Issacs (P L D 1970 S C 415) in which the claim for the arrears of full salary of a civil servant who was kept out of employment under a wrongful order was recognized subject to the only qualification that if during the relevant period he was gainfully employed he will account for earned arrears and his salary. In view of the above facts and evidence brought on record I am clear in my mind that the respondent has illegally deducted wages of the petitioner from 11‑10‑69 to 14‑5‑70 amounting to Rs. 1,228.16. I, therefore, direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,228.16 alongwith 5 times compensation totalling Rs. 7,363.96 with this Court forthwith.