Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 32 of 1979, decided on 10th July 1979.

----S. 15‑Limitation‑Claim remaining under correspondence with employer‑Objection regarding delay, in circumstances, rejected.

----S. 15‑Civil Servants Act (LXXII of 1973), S. 2(h)(iii) and Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S. 2(h)‑Practical Instructor in Earth Moving Training Academy of M. C. P.‑A workman and not a civil servant- Claim of wages of such person, held, within jurisdiction of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

Abdul Hameed Khan for Appellants.

Muhammad Bashir Awan for Respondents.

This appeal is filed by the appellants against the respondents against the order dated 1‑3‑79 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad in Case No. 29/78 under sections 15 and 16 of Payment of Wages Act by which order the delayed wages and cost total amount being Rs. 10,380, was allowed against appellants in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

2. The case of the respondents 2 to 4 was that they were serving as Practical Instructors in Earth Moving Training Academy M. C. P. WAPDA Colony, Jamshoro. The Government had revised the pay scales with effect from 1‑6‑1962 and the said respondents claimed the same which claim was accepted by the appellants in the year 1974 and later it was admitted by the appellants that Akbar Khan was entitled to Rs. 2,922, Anwar Hussain was entitled to Rs. 3,369, and Mir Hyder was entitled to Rs. 2,632. The claim of the said amounts was accepted by the appellant on 7‑8‑1975. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 filed the main application on 26‑3‑1978 which was allowed as per said order.

3. The appellants have contested the said order on the ground that the original application was not maintainable being time‑barred and that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were not workmen but public servants and as such the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad bad no jurisdiction to grant the said delayed wages.

4. Admittedly the claim of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 was admitted on 29‑6‑74 as per letter Exh. P/1 and another letter dated 11‑11‑74 Exh. 3, but the fixed amount was not mentioned in it. The said respondents moved an application to the appellant on 19‑7‑75 as per Exh. P/5 claiming the said amounts and in receipt to it the appellants accepted the liability to pay the said amounts vide letter dated 7‑8‑75 Exh. P/6 and the same liability was further accepted in letter dated 10‑8‑76 Exo. P/7 and by copy of Telax Exh. P/7 filed in original case. Thus the appellants had actually accepted the particular amounts to be paid to those respondents on 7‑8‑75 and hence the main application filed on 26‑3‑78 was within 3 years and therefore it was within the period of limitation. The contention of the appellants that the claim was of 1974 and hence application was moved after 3 years cannot be accepted in view of the said admission of the appellant in letter Exh. P/6, Moreover the appellants had not refused payment of the said claim and correspondence was going on till 1976 and therefore also the main application could not be treated as time barred. The Authority has also the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the application but in the present case there does not seems to be any deliberate delay on the part of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to file the main application. Thus I hold that the main application was not time‑barred.

5. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were serving as Practical Instructors in Earth Moving Training Academy which was a part and parcel of M. C. P. workshop which is treated as factory. According to section 2(h)(iii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1975 civil servant does not include a person who is a worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 being the employees of the M. C. P. workshop they were workers under section 2(h) of the Factories Act and section 2(l)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus the contention of the appellant that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were civil servants cannot be accepted. .

6. The amounts claimed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and the amounts decreed are not disputed by the appellant. The respondent No. 1 had thus jurisdiction to entertain the claim of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 adjudicate thereon. The appellants have failed to establish that the said order of respon dent No. 1 was illegal and not warranted on facts. I therefore hold that the appeal is not maintainable and so dismiss the same.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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