1984 PLP 587 (PLC)

The respondent, Muqarrab Khan, filed an application under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, against the respondent claiming Rs. 6,400 as wages for the period from 1st July, 1979 to 29th February, 1980, allegedly not paid to him. The applicant management challenged the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority on the ground that the respondent was receiving wages more than Rs. 1,000 per month and; therefore, his case was hit by section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages, Act, 1936. The Authority finding that its jurisdiction was barred by virtue of the above‑mentioned provision under section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, dismissed the application of the respondent Muqarrab Khan on that short round, vide its order, dated 16th February, 1983. Aggrieved by this order, he filed an appeal before the learned Sind Labour Court No. 111, Karachi. The learned Labour Court set aside the order and remanded the case to the Authority for re‑adjudica tion, vide its order, dated 10th April, 1983. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant management has come up in this suo motu revision.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, whereas the respondent has remained absent, and have also persued the material evidence available on the record. The learned Appellate Court rightly relied on the decision reported in 1969 P L C 182 and P L J 1975 Tr. C. (Labour) 300 in support of the view that Production bonus forms part of the wages within the meaning of section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. They only question, therefore, remains for consideration is, as to whether the case of the respondent is hit by section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, and the jurisdiction of the Payment of Wages Authority was barred on the plea that the wages payable to the respondent in respect of wage period over such wage period, average more 1,000 rupees a month. In that respect as it appears from, the material evidence available on record, the applicant management adduced the evidence to determine the average wages per month, not in respect of the wage period with effect from 1st July, 1979 to 29th February, 1980, but for a period earlier to it and the period after The wages allegedly not paid and claimed by the respondent were for 1979 to 29th February, 1980 whereas the date for determining the average wages payable per month was furnished by applicant for the months of March of 1979 and November and December 1981, the period earlier and after the wage period, for which average wages per month were not to be determined as payable. The learned Appellate Court very rightly observed that the management had very cleverly referred to payment of production bonus before 1st July, 1979 and after 1st March, 1980 leaving the wage period for which wages were claimed, to see that the jurisdiction of the Authority was ousted on such basis. What I find that the intention of the provision of section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 absolutely different, reads as follows: ‑ "Nothing in this Act shall apply to wages payable in respect of a wage‑period which, over such wage‑period, average more titan one thousand rupees a month." The intention of the Legislature is clear that the wages payable are to be determined in respect of a wage period for which the wage allegedly not paid are payable and in case such wages over such period average more then 1,000 rupees a month, the jurisdiction of payment of Wages Authority is barred. In the instant case the learned Authority has not determined the average wages payable a month in respect of such wage period but has determined such wages for a different period obviously for the reason that production bonus if included in it would calculate more than Rs. 1,000 average a month. In my view, therefore, the Payment of Wages Authority should determine the average wages payable a month on the basis of the evidence to be brought on the record by the parties if they so choose, for the wage period with effect from 1st July, 1979 to 29th February; 1980 as to whether they would exceed Rs. 1,000 average a month or not and then dispose of the case according to law.

3. With the modification above‑mentioned in the impugned order, the suo motu revision is dismissed. A. E. Revision dismissed.