1985 PLP 672 (PLC)

In 1982 P L C 738, it has been held by the Sind High Court that "Chowkidar" is a worker for the purpose of Factories Act. The opponent has filed a statement showing monthly wages of the applicants and contended that sine applicant No. 1. is getting more than one thousand rupees a month, the application is not maintainable. The applicant side has taken the stand that from the very statement it is not clear as to which month it pertains and if it is presumed that it pertains to the month of September, 1982 (because it was produced on 19th September, 1982) it is irrelevant, for the reasons, that the claim pertains to the period upto 3/1975, and as per ruling of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, as reported in 1984 P L C 587, the averaged waged period of the claim is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of jurisdiction. And according to a Supreme Court decision as reported in P L D 1963 S C 340, only the basic wages are to be taken for the purpose of jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion I decide the issue in affirmative. Issue No. 2 It is not disputed that the applicants are on deputation en bloc from M. P. O. WAPDA to M. C. P. from 1st September, 1974. Mere fact that their deputation can effect their claim was considered by this Court in a C similar case titled Abdul Wahid and others v. M. C. P., and upheld by the Appellate Court, vide judgment reported in 1978 P L C 506, wherein it was held, that M. C. P. is liable to pay all the outstanding dues of its predecessor organisation. I, therefore, hold that the claim of the applicants is not adversely affected of their being WAPDA deputationists. In the cases decided by this Court and learned Labour Court Hyderabad and cited under issue No. 1 above, it was held that the employees working in M. C. P. (the opponent) are entitled for the Project Allowance. The opponent witness who is also happened to be deputationist from M. P. O. WAPDA, has admitted that he was also in receipt of Project Allowance.. In view of the above authorities and cross‑examination of opponent witness, I hold that the applicants are entitled to the claim. I answer the issues accordingly. The claim of the applicant is upto 3/75, and application for which has been filed in April 1981. The opponent has taken the objection that it is time barred. The M. C. P. is opponent organisation came into being in 1974. In para. 6 of the application, the applicants have asserted that despite the decision of so many cases of the similar claim (referred to under issue No. 1 above) the opponent have not paid the claim to the applicants. Exhs. A and B are copies of letter written by the opponent to the applicants, which show that the applicants are pursuing the claim with the opponent. Through these letters the applicants were informed that since the matter is sub judice in High Court, therefore their claim cannot be allowed till decision. These letters were sent in Decemb1980 and the applicants have filed their claim in April, 1982 is quite with in time. It is proved that the applicants were bona fidely pursuing their claim, therefore I condone the delay in filing the claim. The upshot of the above discussion is that the claim of the following applicants as shown against each is allowed :‑ (1) S. Muhammad Amin Shah. Rs. 2,160 (2) Muhammad Hussain. Rs. 3,160 (3) Shafhat Khan. claim was withdrawn. (4) Murad. Rs. 2,160 (5) Chiraghan. Rs.2,160 Total Rs. 9,640 The opponent is directed to deposit the above amount of his. 9,640 (Rupees nine thousand six hundred and forty) only, within thirty days in this Court for disbursement to the claimants. A. E. Application allowed.