1986 PLP 589 (PLC)

Rs.12,425 (e) Bonus Rs. 925 (f)Companies profit Rs.5,000 Rs.32,225 The opponent filed reply statement and denied the liability entitlement of the claim of all the three applicants. The following issues were settled: ‑ (1) Whether the application is maintainable in law. (2) Whether the opponent has paid all the dues to the applicant (3) Whether this Court has no jurisdictions to try these cases. (4) Whether the applicant is not entitled to the claim or any part thereof. (5) What should the order be. The applicants examined themselves in support of their claim Mr. Aziz on the opponent side was examined in evidence. Both the learned counsel filed written statements, and were also heard orally. I have perused the material on record and my findings on each issue are as under: ‑ It was contended by the opponent that the application is vague and absolutely uncertain as no specific particulars or details of claim have been given therein. In the case of Sayed Bawa Mian s Adam, even the schedules, showing the claim have not been fit Therefore, the applications are neither properly pleaded, nor compete or legal. The learned counsel also contended that the applicants, Adam, Ismail and Syed Bawa Mian, were employed as Gate Keeper, Gene Clerk and Weigh‑man respectively, and were not engaged in the manufacturing process of the factory and do not fall within the definition of a worker as laid down under the Factories Act. Moreover, the provision in regard to leave, the Chapter IV-A of Factories Act is not applicable in seasonal factories. Therefore, they cannot file application under the Provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. The above submissions could not be controverted by applicant‑side. I, therefore, hold that the applications are not maintainable law and this Court has no jurisdiction to try these matters. The opponent has filed copies of vouchers as Annexure R/2 in the case of Syed Bawa Mian; R/2, R/3 and R/4 in the case of Adam; and R/2 and R/3 in the case of Ismail, which show that all the legal dues were duly received by the applicants without any protest or objection, whatsoever at the time of their resignations. These vouchers were confronted to the applicants during their cross‑examination. The admitted their signatures on their respective vouchers, which means that these vouchers remain un‑disputed. After receiving their dues as mentioned in the vouchers, the applicants remained silent for more than one year and did not care to file their claim in the Court. I have come to the conclusion that the opponent has paid the dues to the applicants for which they were entitled. It is only in their affidavits‑in‑evidence that the applicants have for the first time, disclosed the nature of their claim. In the case of Applicant Ismail, he resigned in September 1982, Adam in August 1982 and Syed Bawa Mian in August 1982, and upto that period, they have duly been paid. The claim subsequent to their resignations, seems to be unjustified and is, therefore, disallowed.' The applicants have failed to lead any evidence to prove their claim about the entitlement of leave. In the case of Adam and Syed Bawa Mian, even the number of un‑availed days of leave, has not been mentioned in their applications and the affidavits. This claim is fictitious and is hereby dis‑allowed. Moreover, the provisions leave Chapter of, the Factories Act does apply to the seasonal factories as discusses earlier. The applicants have failed to prove that on which particular holiday, they were made to work. The claim is based on mere imagination and guess work, and is hereby rejected. The applicants claimed the over‑time for three years. No details, whatsoever, have been given. It is hardly believable that the applicants have been performing overtime, continuously for three years, and never, demanded the overtime charges from the opponent. No evidence has` been led by the applicants to substantiate their claim in this respect. The applicants claimed their entitlement for two bonus, out of which they have received one bonus. It has been admitted by the opponent‑witness, that one bonus was paid to them. Under the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968, only one statutory bonus is contemplated, which was duly paid to the applicants by the opponent. For the second bonus, the applicants failed to bring on record any evidence that the second bonus is payable to them under any settlement or award. This claim being exaggerated and un‑supported by any evidence is, therefore, rejected. The opponent has specifically denied the applicability of the scheme of workers participation Fund. The applicants have failed to substantiate their claim if the opponent has earned any requisite profit and the scheme in question has duly been made applicable on the concern of the opponent. The claim of the applicants is, therefore, not warranted by law and is hereby rejected. The counsel for the opponent has cited the following authorities and contended that mere statement of the Claimant is not sufficient to get the claim/relief, unitl it is substantiated by any evidence. (i) 1975 P L C 747 (ii) 1976 P L C 301 I have gone through the above citations, which are quite relevant for the purpose of the present case. In view of the above discussion I find no merit in the applications which are hereby dismissed. A.A.???? Applications dismissed.