1989 PLP 334 (PLC)

1978 P L C 305 and 1988 P L C (C.&) 241 ref. Amanullah Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Ch. Riaz Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 30‑3‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts are that the respondent was suspended from service and when he was reinstated question arose about allowing him wages for the period of suspension. He filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, which was accepted and the petitioner went in appeal which was dismissed Two points have been argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. One is that the. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction and the other is that since the respondent was not honorably acquitted from the case of corruption but only benefit of doubt was given, he was rightly not allowed wages for the period of suspension.

3. So far as the first point is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon an unreported judgment of the High Court titled as "WAPDA v. Abdul Manaaf "Writ Petition No. 5124 of 1983 decided on 7‑5‑1984 wherein it has been held that since the dispute was about the terms and conditions of the civil servant, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon 1978 P L C 305 in which it has been observed that since WAPDA was covered by the definition of factory. Payment of Wages Act was applicable. It is evident that in the authority cited by the learned counsel for the respondent the point that since WAPDA employees were civil servants, Payment of Wages Act was not applicable was not involved. The first point to be seen is whether actually any question with regard to, the terms and conditions of service is involved but there is no evidence on the record to that effect. No terms and conditions of service were produced showing in what circumstances a person could be suspended and if he is reinstated after withdrawing the order of suspension, in what circumstances and to what extent he is entitled to the wages for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to 1988 P L C (C.S.) 241 but in it no terms and conditions are reproduced, and only section 17 of the N.‑W.F.P. Civil Servant; Act, 1973 is reproduced. There is also no evidence that WAPDA adopted Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. The learned Courts below should have first decided whether any question of terms and conditions of service was involved and only then question whether the Payment of Wages Act was applicable and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction could be finally decided. In the unreported ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is not mentioned that any terms and conditions of service had been produced in the case. Since the question touches the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the appellate jurisdiction of the Labour Courts, it is necessary that the question should be finally resolved after giving an authoritative finding with regard to the existence of the terms and conditions of service touching the question of suspension and right to the recovery of wages for the period of suspension on reinstatement.

4. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned I decisions, the appeal is remanded to the learned lower appellate Court with the direction that without remanding the case to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act opportunity be given to the parties to produce evidence on the point F of existence or non‑existence of the terms and conditions with regard to the suspension and recovery of wages for the period of suspension, the appeal be decided afresh. A.E./631/Lb. P???????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.