1989 PLP 561 (PLC)

(d) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.72‑‑Production of document‑‑Only simple copy of document, held, could not be considered as official document of which judicial notice could be taken. S.Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Applicant. Bashir Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th February, 1989. By this decision, I propose to dispose of both these Revision applications in which the question of Law is similar.

2. In Revision Petition No.29/1984, the respondents had moved the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the Payment of the house rent which was being withheld by the applicants. The learned authority under the Payment of Wages Act decided the matter in favour of the respondents and appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed by the learned Labour Court. Consequently they have filed this revision application.

3. In Revision Petition No.30/1984 the respondents had approached the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the grant of relief by way of payment of Conveyance Allowance which was being with held by the applicants. The learned Authority granted the relief prayed for by the respondents and appeal filed against the said order by the applicants was rejected by the learned Labour Court and hence, this revision application.

4. I have heard Mr.S.Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr.Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondents.

5. The fact that the respondents, in both the revision applications are workmen employed by the applicants is not disputed. The main contention of the applicants before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was that the house rent and conveyance allowance do not form part of wages as defined in section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. This question was considered by learned single Judge of Karachi High Court in the case of Zain Packaging Industries Ltd., Karachi v. Abdul Rashid and 2 others 1981 P L C

800. It was held therein that the wages as defined in the Payment of Wages Act included house rent allowance and conveyance allowance. This question was also considered in an unreported case of Executive Engineer v. Rahim Bux and Others (C.P. No163/1984). A learned single Judge of Sind high Court Sukkur Bench had agreed with the view taken in the aforesaid reported case. These decisions of the High Court are binding upon this Tribunal. I, therefore, hold that the house rent as well as conveyance allowance form part of wages.

6. The learned counsel for the applicants has further contended that the fringe benefits including house rent and conveyance allowances was allowed to the workers of work charge establishment under Notification No.FD.11 (15‑EXP‑ . V11I/76, dated 21‑2‑1978, but, the same was never paid to the workmen and this' C Notification was withdrawn by another notification of even number, dated 8‑8‑1978. It may be pointed that this plea was never raised by the applicants before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, but, a simple copy of the letter, dated 8‑8‑1978 was produced before the learned Appellate Court. The learned counsel argues that the Labour Court as well as this Tribunal can take judicial notice of this notification and as there is no stopple against Law, this legal objection could be taken by the applicants before the learned appellate Court, but, the learned appellate Court has erred in ignoring this notification. It I maybe pointed out that the question involved is not simple question of Law, but, it is a mixed question of fact and Law. The plea that the payment of fringe benefits under notification issued in February, 1978, was never paid, is a question t' of fact and not only a question of Law. As pointed above this plea was never raised before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and no evidence was led in this respect by either party. No affidavit by way of further I evidence has been filed even before the learned appellate Court asserting this assertion of facts.

7. The issuance of first notification in February, 1978 is admitted. However, the issuance of second notification in August, 1978 is not admitted by Mr.Bashir Awan, the learned counsel for the respondents. The copy of the alleged notification produced before the learned appellate Court is simple copy and is not certified by any authority to be correct nor the copy of any Gazette Notification's with regard to this August notification had been produced. Under the circumstances, the simple copy cannot be considered‑ as official document of which a judicial authority could take judicial notice. In view of concurrent findings of both the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the learned appellate Court, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders at the revisional stage on the basis of this simple copy of the alleged notification issued in August, 1978 and on oral assertion that no payment was made to the workmen under the notification, issued in February, 1978.

8. For the aforesaid reasons both the revision applications are dismissed. M.Y.H./1400/Lb.S. Petitions dismissed.