1991 PLP 82 (PLC)

(c) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)

Ss.2(vi) & 15--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25-A--Claim of bonus and share of profit and other benefits--Amount of bonus and share of profit, held, was wages as defined under Payment of Wages Act--Workman, under S.15 of Payment of Wages Act, could claim arrears of wages for three years and could not circumvent this provision of Payment of Wages Act by filing application under S.25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance--Worker was allowed monetary benefit for last three years prior to his filing of grievance petition. Ch.Latif Saghar for Appellants. S.M.Kohistani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th April, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.IV at Karachi, dated 4-12-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.

2. I have heard Mr.Ch.Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr.S.M. Kohistani, learned Advocate for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed by the appellants on 10-4-1982, However, he was not made permanent. Consequently he was also not paid bonus and 5 % share in the profit and other benefits, available to permanent employees. According to him, his request for being made permanent, was finally rejected orally by the appellants on 30-8-1987. He, therefore, served grievance notice upon the appellants on 22-9-1987 and thereafter filed his grievance petition on 15-11-1987. .

4. The first objection raised by Mr.Ch.Latif Saghar is that the grievance petition is time-barred as the respondent claims his right from 1982. It may be pointed that the only evidence on record is the evidence led by the respondent. The appellants failed to produce any evidence in spite of fact that they were given sufficient opportunity by the learned Labour Court, which the learned Labour Court has described in detail in the impugned order. The learned Labour Court has also rightly excluded from consideration the pleas raised by the appellants in the written statement, as the person who has signed the written statement was not examined by the appellants. The learned Labour Court has relied, in this context, upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported in P L D 1972 S C

25. Thus, the word of the respondent that he was employed since 1982 remained un-rebutted. There is no evidence that he was employed on any job which was of temporary nature likely to be finished within 9 months. The fact that the respondent continued in service for more than 5 years before he approached the learned Labour Court, would show that he had successfully completed the period of probation and further more the job was of permanent nature. This conclusion also finds support from the admission from Mr.Latif Saghar at the Bar that the respondent had been made permanent with effect from 1-11-1988. Mr.Latif Saghar, however, contends that after issuance of order making the respondent permanent; his grievance petition became infructuous. I am unable to agree with him because the respondent claims his rights since 1982. He acquired the right of being treated as permanent employee after completing 3 months probation period.

5. The cause of action continued till he was made permanent. Further more his statement that his request was finally rejected orally on 30-8-1987 has gone un-rebutted. Thus grievance notice or petition, therefore, was not time-barred.

6. The respondent was appointed on 10-4-1982. As such, he would be deemed to be permanent with effect from 10-7-1982, though the learned Labour Court has given him the status of permanent workman from 10-4-1982. The respondent also claims bonus, share in profit and other benefits from 10-4-1982, though the petition was filed by him on 15-11-1987. The amount of bonus, profit etc., would be wages as defined under section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Under section 15 of the said Act, a workman could claim the arrears of wages for 3 years. As such, the respondent could not circumvent this provision of Wages Act by filing an application under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. His right to get the monetary benefits on account of being declared as permanent workman, cannot be allowed for more than 3 years prior to his filing of his grievance petition. He is, therefore, entitled to back benefits, as allowed to him by the learned Labour Court from 15-11-1984, With the above modifications, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed. M.Y.H./1717/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.