1989 PLP 749 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(l)(i)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Fine‑‑Road Transport Corporation employee responsible for loss of R.P.T. Book due to carelessness‑‑Fine of Rs.3,105 imposed to be recovered by instalments @ Rs.100 per month‑‑Employee bringing application before Authority under S. 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and application accepted‑‑Appeal against orders of Authority dismissed by Labour Court‑‑Appellate Order challenged in revision before Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Held: According to S.O. 15(1)(i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 fine up to 3 paisas per rupee of monthly wages being permissible and wages of workman being Rs.1,300 p.m. fine of Rs.39 per month only could be awarded‑‑Order modified accordingly. Nemo for Petitioner. Syed Ashiq Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th August, 1988. This is a revision challenging the order dated 30‑4‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad passed in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act.

2. The facts are that the respondent lost RPT book and for this reason he was charge‑sheeted and was fined Rs.3,105.19. The fine was ordered to be recovered by instalments at Rs.100 per month. The respondent brought an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act which was accepted. The petitioner went in appeal but it was dismissed. It is a third round. Previously the learned lower Appellate Court had remanded the case twice. The respondent admitted the loss of RPT book while in his possession and his plea is that since the petitioner did not incur any loss, therefore, he was wrongly fined. No rule had been shown that only on the ground of loss fine can be imposed. Since the respondent was guilty of not taking care of the RPT book, he was liable to punishment but the punishment awarded is very severe and against the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondent has during arguments admitted that his wages were Rs.1,300 per month. According to Order 15(1)(i) A either punishment of repremand or fine up to 3 paisa per rupee could be awarded. The wages of the respondent being Rs.1,300 per month he could be awarded fine of Rs.39 per month only. Since he was guilty of negligence which according to the petitioner was not habitual he could be awarded fine as mentioned above.

3. As a result the revision is partly accepted and modifying the orders of the learned Courts below the amount of fine is reduced to Rs.39 per month. The total amount recovered so far by the petitioner has been deposited with the authority under the Payment of Wages Act which will be refunded to the respondent after deducting from it Rs.39. A.E./594/Lb. P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision partly accepted.