Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 260 of 1982, decided on 28th May, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 7 & 15(2)‑Workman kept under suspension‑Proceedings and charges ultimately dropped and re‑instatement made‑Non allowing full pay except suspension allowance for period of suspension, in circumstances, held, amounted to illegal deduction bringing matter within jurisdiction of Authority‑Order not to allow full pay further passes by authority not competent to do so‑ Deduction, in circumstances, held, being without any legal order, order passed by Authority for payment thereof did not suffer from any legal authority.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 8th May, 1983.

The revision captioned above arises from the decision, dated 28th August, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore in *he capacity of appellate authority under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act.

2. The respondent was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held. He was placed under suspension. The enquiry officer submitted his report recording some charges a. proved and some unproved. But his recom mendations were in favour of the respondent on the ground that the allegations were based upon the personal grudge of his boss Mr. M.Y. Khan He also remarked that in the hostile circumstances in which the respondent was put any other person would have retaliated in the same manner as the respondent did. The enquiry was dropped and the respondent was re‑instated. At the time of re‑instating the respondent and dropping the enquiry, the competent authority exonerated him from the charges and did not pass any punishment, nor said anything about the remunerations for the suspension period. Vide order Exh. R‑26 the Finance Officer (Power) III informed that besides the allowances received by the respondent during suspension period from 10th September, 1970 to 21st April, 1975 no further payment would be made for the aforesaid period. In view of his order, the deduction was made.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deductions not being covered by the Payment of Wages Act, the Authority had no jurisdiction. This argument rather goes in favour of the respondent. According to section 15(2), where deductions have been made against the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, petition lies to the Authority. The cases in which legal deductions can be made are enumerated in section 7 and subsections (8 to 13). There is no provision that deduction can be made for the period of suspension. Section 9 deals with deductions for absence from duty. The respondent did not remain absent from duty voluntarily. He was by the order of suspension prevented from discharging his duties. Learned counsel says that deduc tions were made under WAPDA Rules but no such rule has been shown. No doubt competent authority has jurisdiction to decide if full wages for the suspension period be allowed or not but such powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Admittedly, the respondent was not punished, the enquiry was dropped and he was reinstated. If the respondent had been found guilty, wages for the suspension period could have been disallowed by way of punishment and remedy for the respondent would have been to challenge the order before some other forum. But without being convicted, he has been disallowed wages. It, therefore, amounts to illegal deduction and only the Authority under the Payment of Wages A Act had jurisdiction. Even otherwise the suspension for indefinite period was not legal. Even the functionary who disallowed wages for the suspension period, except the ones which the respondent had received, had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Only the competent authority can take decision whether a suspended employee will or will not be entitled to wages for the suspension period on re‑instatement. The order of re‑instatement (Exh. P‑2) and the order of dropping the enquiry (Exh. P‑3) were passed by the Member (Power), but Exh. R‑26 shows that the Managing Director (Power) disallowed the remaining wages of the respondent for the period of suspension. The Managing Director is much below the Members of the Authority. Authority is defined in section 2(i) of WAPDA Act thus "Authority means the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority established under section 3 of this Act." According to section 4, the Authority consists of a Chairman and not more than three members. Under section 17 (1) the Authority (Chairman and Members) can employ officers and servants. Under section 20 Authority can delegate its powers to the Chair man, Member, or officer of the Authority. According to section 4, Chairman and Members are to be appointed by the Government. It is thus clear that the Managing Director is the appointment of the Authority and is much below to a Member. So the Member (Power) only who re‑instated the respondent and dropped was competent to decide whether the respondent was entitled to enquiry the wages for the suspension period and to what extent and the Managing Director had no authority. The order Exh. R‑26, therefore, being without jurisdiction is a nullity and could be ignored by every functionary. Deductions, therefore, being without any legal order were illegal and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was quite competent to direct the payment of the said deducted wages and the learned lower Court's impugned order does not suffer from any legal‑ infirmity for which any interference may be considered necessary.

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

A. E. Revision 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.