Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑32 of 1983, decided on 30th May, 1983.

‑‑ S. 15‑Delayed or deducted wages ‑ Employee promoted in officiating capacity C 121 per cent allowance and not allowed pay of higher post till regularly promoted‑Refusal to allow pay of higher post during period of officiating capacity, held, would not amount to deduction of wages or delayed wages ‑ Claim for pay of post for such period, held, not within jurisdiction of Authority Jurisdiction of authority, held, would have arisen bad employee been refused pay of higher post despite order to that effect by competent authority.

‑‑‑ S. 15‑Retired person‑Can seek redress before authority about his rights and retirement benefits ‑ To be in service, held, not essential for seeking remedy

Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 24th May, 1983.

The decision dated 18th December, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore in appellate jurisdiction has been challenged in this revision.

2. The petitioner was promoted as S. D. O. in officiating capacity at 12J per cent allowance on 11th July, 1964. He was later on in 1969 regularly promoted as S. D. O. and was allowed the pay of the post. He claims that he was entitled to the regular pay of the post of S. D. O. right from 11th July, 1964 when he was promoted in officiating capacity. He treating the refusal of claim as illegal deduction made application to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The basis of his claim was that he was entitled to regular promotion right from the date of his promotion in officiating capacity i. e. 11th July, 1964 under 25% quota for promotion. Since his pay was never fixed in regular scale of S. b. O. for the period he remained as officiating S. D. O., it was not a case of deduction of wages or of delayed wages. If it had been decided by the competent authority that be was entitled to the regular pay scale of S. D. O. right from 11th July, 1964 and still his pay had not been fixed A according to the order of the said authority, the case would have beep of deduction of wages and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act would have jurisdiction. The petitioner should have, if he thought that he had a good case, agitated the matter in the Court of competent jurisdiction instead of going to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

3. However, I cannot endorse the view of the learned lower Court that the petitioner after being retired had ceased to remain a workman Firstly in the Payment of Wages Act there is no term 'workman' and instead the term used is person employed' and secondly by retirement the retired persons can seek remedy about his retirement benefits or rights.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in revision and dismiss it in limine.

A. E 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.