Find a Lawyer

Application No. 224 of 1980, decided on 14th April, 1985.

‑‑S. O. 12 (9).‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15‑Gratuity and Group Life Insurance amount‑Claim for‑Legal heir of de ceased WAPDA employee on deputation with Mechanised Construc tion of Pakistan Workshop registered under Factories Act (XXV of 1934) claiming gratuity and Group Life Insurance amount of deceased‑Claim entertained as within jurisdiction and allowed by Authority.

1978 P L C 506 ref.

M. Bashir Awan for Applicant.

M. M. AM for the Opponent.

By this order I will dispose of the application filed by the applicant under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, read with section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The brief facts leading to file this case are that the deceased father of the applicant was employed under the opponent at the time of his death. The deceased worker was employed on 1st March, 1960 in the predecessor organisation of the opponent (i.e. M. P. O. WAPDA). His services alongwith others were dispensed with by the aforesaid predecessor organisation in the year 1963, which were challenged in the Court. In 1979 as per Court decision the deceased worker alongwith others were reinstated in service. Because during the pendency of their application for reinstatement the present set‑up of M. C. P. (the opponent) was formed from 1st September, 1974 and was made a party to the proceedings aforesaid.

In term of the Court order, the applicant was reinstated in service by the above‑named opponent on 4th May, 1980 and while in service died his natural death on 2nd July, 1980. The applicant being legal heir of the deceased has filed the present application claiming Rs. 15,000 on account of Group Life Insurance and Rs. 6,461 as gratuity.

The opponent denied the claim and liability by filing written statement. The following issues were settled:‑

(1) Whether the father of the applicant was permanent workman working under the opponent

(2) Whether the father of the applicant was working in any Factory/ Industrial Establishment

(3) Whether the applicant is entitled to any relief of part of the relief, if so, to what extent

(4) Whether this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try this case

(5) Whether the application is not maintainable in the eyes of law

(6) What should the order be

Exh. A/3 is pay envelope showing the monthly wages paid to deceased worker Madar Bux by the opponent. This envelope shows that a premium of Rs. 4.63 was deducted from the wages of the deceased on account of Group Life Insurance. This fact was admitted by the opponent witness in his cross‑examination. The date of appointment as 1st March, 1960 of deceased in the predecessor organisation has not been disputed and it is also not disputed that the deceased was taken on duty on 4th May, 1980 by the opponent abovenamed.

The document A/3 itself shows the recovery of premium of G. L. I. which is admittedly recovered from the permanent workman and taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the deceased, I have come to the conclusion that the deceased was permanent workman.

The opponent witness admitted in cross‑examination that the deceased was working in Tractor Shop which is under the control of Assistant Manager Workshop. Annexure A/4 shows that his designation was Mechanic. It is evident from the document Exh. A/1 which is a certificate of registration of the Factory of the Opponent, issued by the Inspector of the Factories Hyderabad, and it is conclusive proof that M.C.P. Workshop is a Factory.

Moreover by virtue of section 2 (ii) ( f) of the Payment of Wages Act, the opponent concern falls within the definition of Industrial Establishment, and its employees can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. .

In view of the above factual position, I hold that the deceased worker was working in the Factory/Industrial establishment.

It is admitted position that the deceased was reinstated in service by the opponent on 5th May, 1980 and he joined his duties in Tractorshop of the opponent's Workshop.

Exh. A/4, is an application for leave submitted by the deceas ed, duly, recommended by the Medical Officer, , of the opponent organisation.

Exh. A/3, is pay envelope which indicates that the wages were paid by the opponent for the month of May, 1980, and by virtue of provisos (a) and (b) of section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act the opponent deems to be "Employer" of the deceased worker. There is no "Stay" on record against the reinstatement of the deceased, by the Hon'ble High Court.

The opponent has failed to bring on record any charge‑sheet, termina nation or dismissal order of the deceased worker to prove that the deceased was absent from his duties at the relevant time. .

The deceased worker died while in service under the opponent, and he was contributing to the G. L. I. scheme, therefore he is entitled to the pay ment of G. L. I. amounting to Rs. 15,000.

The deceased is also entitled to the Gratuity which is paid on length of service and not on actual working of a claimant. The objection of the opponent that since the deceased was reinstated without back benefits hence he is not entitled for gratuity for the intervening period, is miscon ceived, in view of the fact that by reinstatement it is meant the continuity of service.

In 1978 P L C 506 it has been held by the Sind Labour Court that M. C. P. is liable to make the payment of all the outstanding dues of its predecessor organisation.

In view of above discussion I hold that the deceased is entitled to the following claim

With regard to the objection of the opponent that the applicant is only entitled to his share and therefore cannot file claim for all the legal heirs is also not tenable, because the prayer clause of the application is clear wherein direction has been sought for deposit of the amount in this Court.

The legislature has conferred powers on this Court under Standing Order 12 (9) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, for determining and recovery of the claim of the nature filed by the applicant.

The deceased at the relevant time was working in M. C. P. Workshop which is registered as Factory under the Factories Act. He was serving as Mechanic to Tractorshop and was therefore a workman under the Factories Act. Factual position being so, he was excluded from the definition of Civil Servant as given in the Civil Servant Act, ,1973.

Considering the above legal and factual position, I hold that this Court has the jurisdiction and the application is maintainable in law.

In view of the above discussion I allow the claim as set‑forth in the application which totals to Rs. 21,461 and direct the opponent to deposit the same in this Court within 30 days for distribution among the legal heirs of the deceased worker.

A. B.

Application allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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