1994 PLP 18 (PLC)

SA. Latif for Respondent. Date of hearing:17th October, 1993. The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore Division, Lahore has in the instant revision petition assailed the judgment of the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore dated 26th of February, 1992, whereby his appeal from the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of. Wages Act, Lahore on 30th of March, 1991, was dismissed.

2. Mst. Khurshid Anwar, respondent in this revision petition, is the widow of Haider Ali. Haider Ali was employed as Driver (U.G.) under the petitioner. He retired on 7th of February, 1986 on attaining the age of superannuation. Since he was a member bf :he running staff, he was in receipt of 55% running allowance. On 21st of December, 1988 he was allowed encashment of leave preparatory to retirement for six months from 12th of August, 1985 to 7th of February, 1986. He was paid pay for this period. However, 55% running allowance which he was drawing prior to his retirement, was refused to him. He died on 16th of September, 1989. On 29th of October, 1989 the respondent, as his widow, filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Authority for the Railways at Lahore, there under, for an amount of Rs.3,118.50 as running allowance for six months at the rate of Rs.519.75 per month. It was pleaded that running allowance was a part of the pay of Haider Ali and he was entitled to receive the same along-with his pay for the above period.

3. The petitioner contested the application controverting the contention of the respondent and raising preliminary objections to the effect that the Authority had no jurisdiction in the matter, that the respondent had no cause of action, that the respondent was not entitled to file the application, that the application was barred by time and that the petitioner was not the pay master.

4. The respondent examined herself as P.W. 1 in support of the issues. In rebuttal, Mubarik Ali, an Upper Division Clerk, entered the witness‑box as R.W.1. The Authority after appraising the evidence decided all the issues in favour of the respondent and accepting her claim, directed the petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs3,11850 as running allowance for the period from 12th of August, 1985 to 7th of February, 1986 and Rs.31,185 as ten times compensation.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore which however dismissed the same vide its impugned judgment. Hence this revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application filed by the respondent before the Authority was barred by time. According to him, the limitation started to run from 7th of February, 1986 when Haider Ali retired on attaining the age of superannuation and since the respondent filed the application on 29th of October, 1989 after the expiry of three years from the above date, the application was barred by time. Learned counsel for the respondent has controverted this contention. He has argued that the limitation started to run from the date running allowance was denied to Haider Ali while allowing him encashment of L.P.R. benefits and that since the denial occurred on 21st of December, 1988, the application filed before the Authority was within time. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent is cogent and unassailable. The learned Authority as well as the learned Labour Court were, therefore, justified in treating the application of the respondent as within time.

7. The next contention which has been pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since the amount claimed by the respondent viz. Rs3,118.50 exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Authority, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. This argument too is without force. Section 1, subsection (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to wages payable in respect of a wage‑period which, over such wage period, average more than one thousand rupees a month. In this case the claim was for RsS19.75 per month. Therefore, the Authority had jurisdiction in the matter.

8. On merits, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that running allowance is not a part of the pay and, therefore, the employee was not entitled to it along-with pay for the encashment period. Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted this contention. He has referred to the Note below Rule 2(11)(c) of Chapter No. 4, section 1, Part `A' of the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, Volume I at page

533. The clause (c) and the Note there-under is as follows:‑‑ `(c) `Running Allowance' means the allowance granted to (former) non -gazetted railway servants for the performance of duties directly connected with the charge of moving trains and includes a mileage, overtime or trip allowance. Note.‑‑In the case of staff entitled to running allowance, a month's pay shall also include the amount of running allowance drawn during the month limited to 55% of pay for that month. In the case of a person who is on leave (other than LWP), however, 55% of pay which he would have drawn, had he not proceeded on leave, shall be taken as pay for the purpose of running allowance, provided that it is certified by the Controlling Officer that the employee concerned would have continued to draw the same pay for the post, had he not proceeded on leave. In cases where the post from which an employee proceeds on leave terminates during the period of his leave, 55% of the pay of post which he would have held, had he not proceeded on leave shall represent his running allowance for that period." The above Note clearly envisages that a month's pay shall include running allowance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited any rule to the contrary. Accordingly, the Authority did not err in accepting the claim of the respondent.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no valid ground for interference and dismiss this revision petition. H.B.T./760/Lb.P Revision dismissed.