1976 PLP 301 (PLC)

(3) Gratuity for one year's service - Rs. 100-00 (15 days wages) (4) Payment for annual leave (14 days as - Rs. 93 -33 per Section 6 of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961) (5) Payment for overtime work 1000 hours - Rs. 1,480-00 (at double the rate of ordinary wages per hour). - Rs. 1,973-33 Plus (6) Compensation in terms of section 7(3) of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. (7) Costs Such other relief as may be deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble Court.

3. The appellant failed to appear and, therefore, ex parte decision was taken allowing the re-instatement. Against this, an appeal was filed and it was allowed by my learned predecessor. The order was set aside and the case was remanded for disposal after allowing the appellant to file the written statement.

4. On reward, written statement was filed and the claim was disputed. It was pleaded that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and proper forum was not selected, that the case of the respondent did not fall within the purview of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, that the respondent was not a workman, the prayer for dues was barred under section 35 (6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, that the cause of action arose prior to the incorporation of section. 25-A in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. that the legal notice issued by the Advocate was not a grievance petition as required by law and notice was replied. It was, however, admitted that the respondent was in the employment on a monthly salary of Rs. 200 but the remaining allegations were denied.

5. Evidence by way of affidavits was tendered. On the assessment of evidence, the Labour Court did not allow re-instatement but allowed the amount under the various items as claim. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

6. Efforts were made to serve the respondent but he is untraceable. Consequently, substituted service was ordered.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset contended that the claim for wages etc. was barred by virtue of Payment of Wages Act as laid down by section 2 (6) of the Act, as the Labour Court was not the authority under the said Act. There is no force in this contentions as section 2 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act lays down that nothing in this Act shall apply to wages payable in respect of a wage period which, over such wage period, average 200 rupees a month or more. Admittedly the respondent was drawing Rs. 200 per month.

8. It was next urged that the notice sent through the Advocate could not be treated to be a grievance petition as laid down by law. This contention cannot be accepted as neither issue to that effect was framed nor this ground was pleaded in the memo of appeal.

9. Having disposed of the legal objections, I now turn to the merits. It has been conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the claim for wages for 15 days of March 1972, one month wages in lieu of notice, fifteen days' wages as gratuity and payment for annual leave under section 6 of the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance could not be assailed. The amount under these items is Rs. 493.33. He has confined himself to the amount of Rs. 1,480 allowed for overtime. He took me through the evidence and urged that there was no sufficient material on record to sustain the decision of the Labour Court. I entirely agree with this contention. In the notice no details as to the overtime period were given. It was for the first-time in the application that one thousand hours were shown. It is not understood how this period was worked out. In the notice it was stated that he worked overtime during the entire period of service of which he got a well-maintained account. No such account was produced by the respondent. His mere word cannot be accepted. Apart from this, the absurdity of the claim is evident from the evidence of the respondent and his witness that be worked for all the 24 hours. It is humanly impossible to work for 24 hours continuously for the entire period he remained in service. The burden lay upon him and he failed to discharge it. In the absence of documentary proof the mere word can not be accepted. It is also to be noted that the claim for overtime relates to the entire period of service, although the pay ment for overtime is required to be made every month. It is not possible to believe that the respondent continued to work without receiving or claiming the payment for overtime. Prior to the incorporation of section 25-A in the I. R. O. there was Standing Order No. 18 embodied in the Standing Orders Ordinance for the redress of individual grievance. It is not understood why the respondent did not choose any legal course earlier, although period of limitation was prescribed for preferring the claim. No reason has been given.

10. In the result I reduce the claim to Rs. 493.33 and disallow the claim for the amount of Rs. 1,

480. With this modification the appeal stands disposed of.