1992 PLP 520 (PLC)

3. When his claim was finally rejected on 12-4-1982, he riled an application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act where he filed statement of deducted wages amounting to Rs. 48,842 from 27-11-1947 to 13-12-1979 and claimed Rs. 52,500 as wages of LPR refused on termination of service to which he was entitled under the law. He further claimed computation/payment of gratuity in the sum of Rs. 21,033.50 which had been deducted from the gratuity, payable to him and finally he claimed compensation at the rate of ten times of the amount deducted.

4. The claim was contested before the aforesaid Authority on a number of ground. The authority on the evidence led before him by order dated 30-1-1985 ordered the payment of Rs. 5,51,796 to the applicant. The present respondent had preferred an appeal before the Labour Court and the apical was partly allowed inasmuch as the compensation awarded was reduced to two times as against five times granted by the Authority. This had resulted in the filing of Constitution petitions before the High Court by both the parties, and by consent the matter had been remanded to the Authority with permission to the parties to amend the claim application and file fresh documents if they so chose.

5. When the record was received by the Authority the present applicant had moved an application for amendment, which was duly allowed. Thereafter evidence was led by the parties. By order dated 25-10-1985 the incoming Authority had granted the present applicant the following amounts. (i) Deduction of pay Rs. 48,842.00 (ii) Encashment of refused LPR Rs. 5,850.00 (iii) Gratuity less paid Rs. 21,033.50 (iv) Five times compensation Rs. 378,627.50 Total: Rs.4,54,353.00

6. This had led to an appeal before the Labour Court from the side of Railway Department. The Labour Court found that the authority had the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and was justified in passing the order in regard to the encashment of the LPR, but the orders in regard to the payment of Rs. 48,842 and Rs.21,033.50 were set aside. The learned Presiding Officer was of the view that the Authority could not regulate the salary which had not been still fixed, as it would be going beyond the terms of sections 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. This resulted in this Revision application.

7. The case of Shaukat Ali and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the General Manager, North Western Railway, Lahore reported in PLD 1960 Lahore page 144 was cited before the learned Labour Court, wherein the definition of "wages" was gone into, and was found to include the remuneration which would, if the terms of the contract of employment expressed or implied were fulfilled be payable in respect of the work done in such employment. It was further observed there in that "if the Authority has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Payment of Wages Act, if the wages stated by the petitioners arc denied by the employer will defeat the Act itself, and would make absolutely ineffective". However, the learned Labour Court was of the view that it was bound by the judgment of the Sindh High Court where a diametrically opposite view was taken--namely Nasiruddin and others v. Sindh Labour Court 1987 PLC

633. It was held therein that the authority could grant the wages which actually were, but could not enter into an enquiry to determine as to what the wages ought to be. Reference was made to a number of authorities from Indian jurisdiction.

8. It is not necessary to go into the matter as the issue is clinched by the judgment of our own Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 626 to 631 of 1989 decided on the 9th of dune, 1991--namely Pakistan Railways v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others. The contention before the Supreme Court was that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the fixation of pay of the contesting respondents as the quantum of wages was a matter of serious dispute between the parties.

9. It appears from the judgment that this question had been examined in an earlier case which had been referred therein, and where it was observed "that the Authority is competent to determine the wages of an employee as deducible from the contract of his employment even though there may be serious dispute between the employer and the employee with regard to their, quantum".

10. It has to be seen than the applicant had filed a chart of the wages that were due to him as a result of the order of the Railway authorities passed in 1961), and the figure which had been worked out on the basis of that document in regard to the pay to which the application was entitled, had not been disputed then or even now. What has been done by the authority was to tift these figures which were unchallenged and order the payment thereof with compensation, to the applicant.

11. I am clearly of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. As a result, I will allow the Revision Application and restore the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority. H.B.T./2017/Lb. S Revision allowed.