1998 PLP 285 (PLC)

Remedial statute

Remedial statute should be construed in a manner so as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief. Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioners. Ch. Abdul Hafeez for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th April, 1997. A judgment announced on 21-3-1992 by Haji Muhammad Akram Baitu, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been brought under challenge before this Tribunal by the Federation of Pakistan, through Chairman, Pakistan Railways, and other Authorities of the Department.

2. Actually, Rashid Akhtar's petition had favourably been disposed of on 31-10-1989 by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the Railways, Lahore. Haji Muhammad Akram Baitu, learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. 2, had upheld the same by a judgment pronounced on 20-1-1991. When, however, the Federation of Pakistan had recourse to this forum, by way of a revision petition, the same was allowed, Labour Court's decision dated 20-1-1991 was set aside and the case was remanded for re-decision. It was observed that the question of lack of jurisdiction of the 'Authority' had not been adverted to by the learned Labour Court and it could be raised at any time, even though such an objection had not regularly been taken up earlier. In the opinion of my learned predecessor, it was actually the duty of the Court to see to it, while dealing with a matter, whether it had jurisdiction or not. The learned Labour Court, I must say, has dealt with the issue in a rather perfunctory manner, inasmuch as it has been observed that the contention of the learned counsel for the Railways to the effect that the 'Authority' had no jurisdiction the matter was without substance and the 'Authority' was well within rights to adjudicate upon the issue between the parties about entitlement of the employee to advance increments. A reference has however, been made to PLD 1973 SC 589, in which reported case, it has been pronounced that if the Railway Administration refuses payment of arrears to an employee, or makes only fractional payment, purporting to be acting under the Railway Code, the Commissioner, on an application under the Payment of Wages Act, will, be authorised to deal with the issue. Wages do not, necessarily, mean earned wages. An employee is entitled to full wages, unless a deduction is permissible under the Act. Language of section 7, Payment of Wages Act, is both exacting and pre-emptory, which makes the legislative intendment clear beyond any doubt. Law will not countenance any deduction in wages, unless the same is squarely covered by any provisions of the Act. The statute is remedial in its object and it is well-established that a remedial statute should be construed in a manner, so as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief, for otherwise it will frustrate the legislative intendment.

3. As discussed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, in, the course of the judgment dated 31-10-1989, Rashid Akhtar, having improved his qualification and obtained B.A. Degree, in the year 1983, he was entitled to grant of four advance increments under the Incentive Scheme, 1962. He did make a move for the same, but met failure, as his application was rejected in May, 1984 (Exh.P-2). He further made a review petition in August, 1987, which too was rejected on 16-9-1987. Basis for rejection of his claim was that he had passed his B.A. Examination in 3rd Division.

4. To say that he had preferred his claim belatedly would be giving a lie to a reality, the reason being that he had constantly remained in touch with the Authorities and had throughout been making efforts for getting advance increments and the 'arrears on that count. He had even approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib in the matter, vide Exhs. P-3 and

4. RW-1 did not deny that Rashid Akhtar had made applications about award of advance increments on 24-4-1987 and 12-9-1987 (Exhs.P-1 and 5). The delay, which ostensibly was caused in Rashid Akhtar having recourse to the 'Authority' was obviously condonable and excusable.

5. When originally the Incentive Scheme was introduced, by an order of the President of Pakistan in 1962, it did not make any distinction as to whether an incumbent of a post has done his graduation in 1st, 2nd or 3rd Division. Rashid Akhtar graduated in the year 1982, and was entitled under the Scheme, then in force, to the advance increments; and an amendment in the relevant provision was subsequently made. Earlier qualification for a Class-1 or Class-II Officer was simple graduation. An employee, entitled to get promotion in Class-11 or Class-1 cadre, could only lay claim to the advance increments.

6. It has rightly been opined by the Authority that the President of Pakistan having introduced the Scheme and subsequent instructions having been issued and variations having been made by the Railway Administration, with no statutory recognition, could not override the stipulations contained in the Incentive Scheme, promulgated by the President. It has been said that the rules framed by the lower authority could not replace those enacted by the principal authority. The right that had accrued to the employee under a particular enactment or scheme could, in no manner, be taken away. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was, as such, not bound by the 'internal instructions' of the Railway Administration and was required to accord recognition to the President's directives.

7. The act of the Railway Administration in refusing to the claimant, the increments, in question, much against his entitlement, would amount to unauthorised deduction on the part of the former, or at least withholding the amount due, has to be treated as delayed wages' Rashid Akhtar was entitled to the four advance increments from 1-5-1982 onwards. The Authority calculated the amount uptil beginning of September, 1987, to Rs.4,316, and also awarded three times compensation to him, observing that he had faced enormous mental and physical torture, besides drain on funds, as also time, by reason of wilful refusal on the part of the Authorities of the Railways to part with the dues in question. Rashid Akhtar had to resort to long-drawn litigation, over a good length of period, after the authorities had rejected his claim and even his review petition; and the same had brought in wake lot of embarrassment and agony for the gentleman. I, however, have the feeling that' the Railway Administration was not declining the benefits to the employee in a wholly wrongful or fanciful manner. Involved in the issue was question of entitlement of the employee to the advance increments, as he happened to be a 3rd division graduate. Interpretation of the relevant rule, in the opinion of the Railway Authorities, was different from the one being adopted and advanced by Rashid Akhtar, but it cannot be said, at the same time, that in an absolutely innocent manner he was deprived of the dues. I would, therefore, hold him entitled to get double the amount (multiplied by two), as compensation, (besides the actual amount payable).

8. The orders rendered by the Authority, and in appeal by the learned Labour Court, do not call for interference by this Tribunal, except to the extent indicated above, I would, therefore, maintain the Labour Court's order, affirming that of the 'Authority' and would dismiss the revision petition, with the minor variation indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./877/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.