1986 PLP 627 (PLC(CS))
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD
| Citation | 1986 PLP 627 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 627 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 627 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 627 (PLC(CS)) (PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Kalyar, for Petitioner.
- Nazir Ahmad Naz Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑S. 1(4) & S. O 12 (6)‑‑Gratuity on retirement‑‑Employee of Government Transport Service‑‑Provisions of Ordinance applicable‑‑Gratuity calculable on basis of wages defined under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 i.e. inclusive of house rent allowance, conveyance allowance and not merely on basis of "pay" as defined to mean basic pay vide Gratuity Rules of Punjab Road Transport Corporation. The order dated 20‑2‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad is reported to be without jurisdiction, whereby the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was upheld.
2. The respondent was retired from service and was paid gratuity on the basic pay only under rules framed under the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance. The respondent claimed that he was entitled to gratuity under Standing Order 12 (6). No doubt in the Gratuity Rules for the employees of Road Transport Corporation the word 'pay' is used which has been defined in the said rules to mean basic pay only. But the said rules are applicable to those employees of an establishment to which Standing Orders Ordinance, 1963 is not applicable. According to section 1 (4) (c) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1963, the said Ordinance applies to those establishments the number of whose employees are 20 or more. This is not the case of the petitioner that the numbers of its employees is short of
20. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies, gratuity is to be paid according to Standing Order 12 (6) wherein word wages and not "pay" unlike Gratuity Rules of the Employees of Road Transport Corporation wherein the word 'pay' is used. The term 'wages' is defined in the Payment of Wages Act. It excludes the value of house accommodation, medical attention, contribution made by the employer towards pension fund, travelling allowance, sums payable to the employees to defray special expenses entailed on the employees by the nature of their employment and gratuity. It is thus clear that the house rent allowance, conveyance allowance etc. are not excluded. So the gratuity has been rightly calculated including house rent allowance, dearness allowance, conveyance allowance and fixed medical allowance. 1 have already held so in 1984 P L C 1171 following 1981 P 1, C 800.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is consequently dismissed. A. E. Revision dismissed
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aslam Kalyar, for Petitioner. Nazir Ahmad Naz Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985. The order dated 20‑2‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad is reported to be without jurisdiction, whereby the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was upheld.
2. The respondent was retired from service and was paid gratuity on the basic pay only under rules framed under the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance. The respondent claimed that he was entitled to gratuity under Standing Order 12 (6). No doubt in the Gratuity Rules for the employees of Road Transport Corporation the word 'pay' is used which has been defined in the said rules to mean basic pay only. But the said rules are applicable to those employees of an establishment to which Standing Orders Ordinance, 1963 is not applicable. According to section 1 (4) (c) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1963, the said Ordinance applies to those establishments the number of whose employees are 20 or more. This is not the case of the petitioner that the numbers of its employees is short of
20. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies, gratuity is to be paid according to Standing Order 12 (6) wherein word wages and not "pay" unlike Gratuity Rules of the Employees of Road Transport Corporation wherein the word 'pay' is used. The term 'wages' is defined in the Payment of Wages Act. It excludes the value of house accommodation, medical attention, contribution made by the employer towards pension fund, travelling allowance, sums payable to the employees to defray special expenses entailed on the employees by the nature of their employment and gratuity. It is thus clear that the house rent allowance, conveyance allowance etc. are not excluded. So the gratuity has been rightly calculated including house rent allowance, dearness allowance, conveyance allowance and fixed medical allowance. 1 have already held so in 1984 P L C 1171 following 1981 P 1, C 800.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is consequently dismissed. A. E. Revision dismissed