1995 PLP 589 (PLC)

Agha Taj Muhammad for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th August, 1986. The above‑captioned 39 revisions report that the orders of the Authority dated 20‑1‑1985 and that of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala passed on its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act on 27‑3‑1986 are wrong and improper.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents had noted down the date of 4‑8‑1986 but did not appear on the said date. Another notices were issued for 11‑8‑1986 and were sent by registered post, which had not come back unserved, therefore, the revisions are being heard ex pane.

3. Vide letter Exh. P‑1 the President had allowed half day's pay for working on Fridays and under rest days. The word `pay' is written and not `wages'. The intention of the letter, therefore, is clear that half day's basic pay excluding allowances were to be paid to the workers for working on Fridays and under rest days. I have already taken this view in 1985 PLC 788 and many other cases. Pay always means remuneration excluding wages. Where the intention is to pay over and above the basic pay, the legislature uses the word `wages'. According to the definition of wages given in the Payment of Wages Act, allowances are included except the ones which have been specifically excluded in the definition such as value of house accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity, any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund, travelling allowance at the value of travelling concession, any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed upon him by the nature of his employment of any gravity payable on discharge. Since only half day's pay has been allowed and not half day's wages the respondents were not entitled to half of 55 per cent running allowance for working on Fridays and under rest days. Proper thing for them was to move for the amendment of the letter and not to knock the door of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. If the letter issued by the President had guaranteed any right to them to claim half of 55 per cent running allowance as well and the petitioner had disallowed the same, only then it could be said that the deduction was made from the wages and the respondents would have been entitled to ask for direction under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The Courts below, therefore, erred in holding that the respondents were entitled to half of 55 running allowance also over and above the half of the basic pay.

4. As a result, the revisions are accepted ex parte and setting aside the impugned decision of the Courts below, the petitions brought by the respondents under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act are dismissed. A.E./157/Lb.P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revisions accepted.