1986 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ Overtime wages‑‑Intermittent worker‑‑Ward servant‑‑Duty in ward and not in Dispensary‑‑Details and nature of duties not indicated‑‑Wards normally requiring employees to remain present without break and beyond normal duties‑‑Plea that ward servant being intermittent worker was not entitled to overtime wages, in circumstance, repelled. Muhammad Iqbal Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Razzaq Special Power‑of‑Attorney Holder for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1986. The order, dated 28‑5‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, whereby the order, dated 15‑1‑1985 of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was confirmed, is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.

2. The respondents are the heirs of Muhammad Ramzan, deceased, who was Ward Servant. The claim is of overtime. The case of the petitioner is that the deceased was an intermittent worker, so was not entitled to overtime wages. Details and nature of duty of the deceased have not been given by the parties. The record is with the petitioner, so it was in a position to disclose the nature of duties. Without this p kind of evidence it is difficult to say that the deceased was essentially an intermittent worker. As the deceased was a ward servant and not employed in a dispensary, his duties are presumed to be continuous. In the ward his services are required at any time. In dispensaries, however, the duties can be otherwise. The duty hours being fixed, the employees leave the dispensary when it is closed and if they are required to give overtime, an order is to be passed. But in wards the employees have to remain present without break and beyond normal duty hours and their services are required at a moments notice. There is no evidence that such employees have fixed duty hours and are allowed to leave the ward and the patients unattended. According to the nature of the job and in the absence of evidence that they are allowed to go away during duty hours, it can be said that their duties are continuous and not intermittent. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the ward no patient is admitted, but this argument is not based upon any evidence and thus is not tenable. Wards are always meant for indoor patients, unless the contrary is proved. Thus, the learned Courts below did not commit any legal mistake in awarding overtime wages to the heirs of the deceased.

3. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed. A. E. Revision dismissed.