Find a Lawyer

Case No. 88‑P of 1968, decided on 31st December 1968.

, S. 15 Bonus‑Not payable to worker failing to complete one year's service.

This is an application from Mahmood Ahmad Shah Ex- driver L. O. S. under the Payment of Wages Act for the payment of Rs. 172 as bonus for the year 1966‑67. A notice was issued to the respondent and the' following issues were framed :‑

(1) Is the application barred by time O. P. R.

(2) Is the petitioner entitled to the wages claimed by him O. P. P.

(3) Relief.

In his statement before the Court the petitioner has himself admitted that his services were terminated in November 1966. He has also admitted that he filed an application in the Industrial Court, but the Industrial Court did not decide the matter in his favour. In his application he has claimed the bonus for the year 1966‑67 which is not admissible to him as he was discharged in November 1966. He has stated before the Court that the bonus for the year 1965‑66 was not paid to him. The petitioner has not produced any independent evidence nor has he produced any document in evidence to prove his case. He closed the case after making his statement before the Court. R. W. 1 Muhammad Rafique Senior Clerk of the office of the respondent has stated that as the petitioner was discharged in November 1966 he was not entitled to the bonus which is paid to the employees after the completion of full one ear. He has filed a copy of the bonus claim Exh. R. W. 1/1 in the Court according to which the bonus is not admissible to the employee if his services are terminated before this sanction. I have heard arguments from tae counsel of the parties. The counsel for the respondent has argued that as the petitioner did not complete the year (from 1-7‑66 top 30‑6‑6,) he was not entitled to claim the bonus. Moreover according to the respondent the petitioner filed an application in the Industrial Court for a declaration that he was ‑milled to bonus but it was dismissed by the Industrial Court. This fact has also been admitted by the petitioner in his statement. The petitioner never claimed bonus for the year 1965 66 as the period of limitation is 6 months in the Payment of Wages Act, and the issue of limitation is already framed. The petitioner has not been able to establish his claim and I decide all the issues against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent. Accordingly the application for the bonus is dismissed. The parties should bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.