1989 PLP 659 (PLC)

4. The learned Authority framed the following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties which are re‑produced below: (i) Whether the respondent _has provided quarter (Residence) to the petitioner? OPR (ii) If issue No.l is not provided, is the petitioner entitled to house rent in dispute? OPA (iii) Relief.

5. The learned Authority after recording evidence of the parties, hearing the arguments and perusing the record of the case, decided issue No.l in the negative, whereas issue No.2 in the affirmative. Resultantly, the claim of the respondent was accepted as prayed for.

6. Dissatisfied by the impugned direction of the Authority, the appellant/Employer has challenged the same through this appeal.

7. Detailed arguments have been addressed. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised certain legal objections which I proceed to examine:‑ Firstly, it has been urged that the learned Authority could not consolidate the petitions and dispose them of bypassing a single order. The impugned order, was therefore. tainted with the said illegality rendering it liable to be set aside. I am afraid that this objection does not hold field. We may refer to subsection (3) of section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act. It lays down the Authority may deal with any number of separate pending applications, presented under section 15 in respect of persons belonging to the same unpaid group as a single application presented under subsection (2) of this section and provisions of that subsection shall apply accordingly."

8. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that treating number of applications' pending separately as a single application of the respondents belonging to the same unpaid group by the Authority did not Violate any provision of law. The Court below therefore, acted within the domain of its authority and jurisdiction. This objection being without any legal efficacy is hereby overruled.

9. Secondly, it is contended that the learned Authority failed to record findings on each issue separately. It is vehemently urged that one of the material requirements of law while recording judgment is that there should be the decision of the Court with regard to each issue. It is further contended that the decision by the learned Authority is liable to be struck down and case remanded on this legal ground alone. The said proposition of law is undisputed. However, in this case, there is no omission to give finding on all the said issues by the Authority. The failure to record finding on each issue is, therefore, a mere irregularity. It is neither material nor prejudicial. The said legal objection is, therefore, rejected. Thirdly, it is urged that the claim in dispute did not relate to deduction made from the wages of the respondent, hence, the Authority lacked jurisdiction in the matter. This objection had not been raised in the written reply filed by the appellant before the Authority. All the more, it has been pressed halfheartedly before me for the reason that by now house rent allowance has been held to be part of wages. It is within the competence of the Authority to ascertain what the wages actually are. The non‑payment of house rent in the circumstances, it is held, amounted to deduction of wages by the appellant/employer. Application claiming the same lies within the jurisdiction of the Authority. This objection too is hereby rejected.

10. Now adverting to the case on merits, it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the respondent had been prodded with operator's quarter at the site of tubewell. He enjoyed this residential accommodation free of rent and, therefore, there was no justification for payment of house rent in dispute, etc. il. On the other hand, it has been argued that it was a 'Duty Room' and, therefore, the respondent could not accommodate his family. The operator remained present there for 24 hour's duty and kept tools necessary for use. Much stress was laid on the letter of the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Exh.P.2 entitling the respondent to receive the house rent in the circumstances.

12. In order to appreciate the said contentions, it appears necessary to examine the oral and documentary evidence on record led by the respective parties.

13. One of the respondents has deposed on oath that the respondent had not been provided with any residential accommodation. They had been provided with 'Duty Room' and it was not a family accommodation. Further reliance has been placed on copy of the letter dated 19‑7‑1982, from Secretary, Government of the. Punjab, Finance Department, to all the Heads of Departments in the Punjab, vide Ex.P.2.

14. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Sharif, S.D.O. in his statement, admitted that the map EX.R.1 did not bear any entry in respect of any quarter. It is therefore, a vague document. He further admitted that the quarter provided to the respondent was a 'Duty Room'. It had no latrine nor any boundary wall. It was 9 x 11 feet. It is further admitted that at certain Tubewell saes, there were no `Duty Room'. However, much stress had been laid on the letter issued by Secretary Government of the Punjab, Irrigation & Power Department, Lahore, EX.R.1. It is urged that there was absolutely no justification for payment of the house rent allowance to the Tubewell Operators as they enjoyed residential accommodation (quarter free of rent at the site of Tubewells).

15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the said contentions in the light of material placed on the record.

16. It is established from the evidence on record that the quarters situated at site of Tubewell are 'Duty Rooms'. These are meant for keeping tools and performance of duty by Tubewell Operators for 24 hours. There is no latrine nor any boundary wall of the said 'Duty Room'. In some cases, the duty rooms do not exist at the sites of Tubewells. The respondent, therefore, could not accommodate his family for residential purposes in the said duty room.

17. The appellant has not produced any documentary evidence of the allotment of a residential quarter to the respondent. In reality, there is no order making allotment of any residential quarter in favour of the respondent. The letter dated 9‑4‑1986, Ex.R.l from Secretary, Government of the Punjab Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore has no effect at all. The clear intention of the Government vide letter Ex.P.2 is to grant house rent allowance at 20% of the minimum of the relevant Revised National Scale of pay to the Civil Servants, who are serving area below Tehsil level and this entitlement cannot be taken away nor the employees deprived of, for the reason, contained in letter EX.R.1. Ex.P.2 has clearly conferred a legal right to receive house, rent allowance in dispute on the respondent/workman. I am, therefore, convinced that impugned direction issued by the Authority is reasonable and well founded. The learned Authority has correctly decided both the said issues in favour of the respondent. The said finding is hereby affirmed. No strong ground has been made out to interfere with the same.

18. The upshot of the aforesaid, discussion is that this appeal is found without any legal substance and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.E./604/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.