1995 PLP 569 (PLC)

1963 PLC 708; 1963 PLC 914; 1969 PLC 84; 1976 PLC 499; 1957‑58 LLC 178; 1957‑58 LLC 139; (1947) 57 LLC 197 and (1947) 57 LLC 400 held not relevant. Sadiq Ali Hashmi, Representative for Petitioners. Saleem Saqib, Clerk for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th September, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 19‑11‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad and the order dated 31‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act are improper and of no legal effect.

2. The petition of the petitioners before the Authority was for wages for working on festival and weekly holidays. The Authority and the learned lower appellate Court held that there was no provision in section 49(i) read with section 35 of the Factories Act for payment of wages, therefore, the petitioners had no cause to go to the Authority. Making a reference to the abovementioned sections of the Factories Act, the learned Representative has argued that since the petitioners were entitled to holidays with pay for working on the days declared by the Government to be the festival holidays, which was not allowed to them, they were entitled to the wages. Since the sections do not make any provision for payment of wages in lieu of leave, it cannot be said that it was either a case of deduction of wages or delay in payment of wages. Needless to say that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction where there is a case of deduction of wages or delay in the payment of wages. It has been argued that the petitioners are paid full month's pay. This being so, it cannot be said‑that their pay had been deducted and their entitlement is only to get additional holidays for working on festival and weekly holidays. Even now if the respondent allows to the petitioners holidays for working on festival holidays and weekly holidays, they would enjoy the said holidays with pay, inasmuch as on the close of every month, full month's pay is paid. It may be said that since the petitioners have not been allowed by the respondent holidays in lieu of festival and weekly holidays, they may be paid wages for the said days, but so far as the application under the Payment of Wages Act is concerned, since there is no provision in the Factories Act for the payment of wages in lieu of holidays, the Authority has no jurisdiction. If the petitioners had a right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award, they could have moved an application under section 25‑A for recovery of wages after observing legal requirements, but it has been rightly held by the learned Courts below that there being no provision in the Factories Act, the Authority could not order the payment of wages.

3. In the alternative the learned Representative has argued that if the petitioners were not entitled to wages in lieu of holidays, they could claim the same as overtime. I am afraid the claim of the petitioners is not for overtime and they cannot be allowed to set up a new case at the revisional stage. In the last resort the prayer of the learned Representative is that a direction be issued to the respondent to allow compensatory leave in lieu of festival and weekly holidays. This prayer also cannot be, allowed because that relief can be granted which the Authority is competent to grant but has failed to do so. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to give direction to the respondent that leave in lieu of working on festival and weekly holidays be allowed to the petitioners. The learned lower appellate Court likewise had no jurisdiction because it hears appeals under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The learned Representative has cited number of rulings such as 1963 PLC 708, 914, 1969 PLC 84, 1976 PLC 499 but they are not germane to the question involved in the revision. He has cited certain awards published in 1957‑58 LLC 178 and 139, 1947‑57 LLC 197 and 400 but since they were industrial disputes based upon certain demands, no question is involved in them whether the Authority has jurisdiction to allow wages in lieu of working on festival and weekly holidays. So, they too are not relevant to the point in dispute. The learned Courts below thus rightly disallowed the petition made by the petitioners under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.

4. As a result, the revision fails and is consequently dismissed. A.E./184/Lb.P Revision dismissed.