Find a Lawyer

Application No. 36 of 1981, decided on 14th April, 1985.

‑‑ Ss. 2(ii)(f) do 15‑Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Work shop registered under Factories Act, (XXV of 1934)‑An "industrial establishment" for purposes of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 WAPDA employee, on deputation to M. C. P. Workshop (including Chowkidar)---Workers for purpose of Factories Act, 1934 Claiming payment of Project Allowance paid to other employees of M. C. P. Basic pay of applicants not more than Rs. 1,000 p. m. claim, held. within jurisdiction of Authority‑Authority allowing claim. [

1983 P L C 822; 1978 P L C 506; 1980 P L C 842; 1982 P L C 738; 1984 P L C 587 and P L D 1963 S C 340 rel.

M. Bashir Awan for Applicants. .

M. M. Aqil for the Opponent.

By this order, I will dispose of the application filed by the applicants named in the annexure to the application, for recovery of the project allowance, under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.

Briefly, facts of the case are that the applicants are working under the opponent abovenamed and have come on transfer en bloc from M. P. O. WAPDA from 1st September, 1974. They have asserted that all their co‑workers have been paid the Project Allowance, but only the applicants have been ignored, despite the facts that they were pursuing the opponent for payment of the said allowance.

The opponent filed the written statement and denied the liability of the claim. The following issues were framed :‑

(1) Whether the applicants are working in any Factory or Industrial Unit run by the opponent as such whether the application is maintainable in law

(2) Whether the applicants are on deputation from "WAPDA, if so, what is the effect

(3) Whether the applicants are entitled for the claim as filed or any part thereof

(4) Whether the claim filed by the applicants is time‑barred

(5) What should the order be

The parties adduced the evidence and filed written arguments. I have perused the proceedings and also arguments. My findings on each of the issues with the reasons therefore are as under :‑

The applicants side has referred me to Exh. A/1 which is certificate issued by the Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad certifying that the M. C. P. Workshop is registered under the Factories Act and contended that it is conclusive proof that the opponent workshop is a Factory and according to section 2(ii)(f ) of the Payment of Wages Act, it is an Indus trial Establishment.

It was further contended that it is not necessary that the claimant must be worker, because section 1(4) of the Payment of Wages Act envisages that it applied to "persons". Law laid in 1983 P L C 822 is very much clear in support of the above submissions.

The applicants have claimed the Project Allowance on relying the following authorities, which have been decided by this Court and upheld by the Appellate Court :‑

(i) 1978 P L C 506.

(ii) 1980 P L C 842.

(iii) S. Azam Hussain and others v. M. C. P. (decided on 22nd June, 1978).

(iv) Amir Muhammad and others v. M. C. P. (decided on 4th November, 1978).

(v) Rehmat Gul and others v. M. C. P. (decided on 18th September, 1980).

The opponent side has misconceived the term "manufacturing" process and argued that only repair of heavy earthmoving machinery is carried out in the M. C. P. Workshop therefore the "repair" cannot be considered as Manufacturing Process. For the advantage, reproduce the definition of the "Manufacturing Process" as given in section 2(g) of the Factories Act.

(g) manufacturing process means any process :‑

(i) for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finding or packing, or otherwise treating any article or substance with a view to its use.

In 1982 P L C 738, it has been held by the Sind High Court that "Chowkidar" is a worker for the purpose of Factories Act.

The opponent has filed a statement showing monthly wages of the applicants and contended that sine applicant No. 1. is getting more than one thousand rupees a month, the application is not maintainable.

The applicant side has taken the stand that from the very statement it is not clear as to which month it pertains and if it is presumed that it pertains to the month of September, 1982 (because it was produced on 19th September, 1982) it is irrelevant, for the reasons, that the claim pertains to the period upto 3/1975, and as per ruling of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, as reported in 1984 P L C 587, the averaged waged period of the claim is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of jurisdiction. And according to a Supreme Court decision as reported in P L D 1963 S C 340, only the basic wages are to be taken for the purpose of jurisdiction.

In view of the above discussion I decide the issue in affirmative.

It is not disputed that the applicants are on deputation en bloc from M. P. O. WAPDA to M. C. P. from 1st September, 1974. Mere fact that their deputation can effect their claim was considered by this Court in a C similar case titled Abdul Wahid and others v. M. C. P., and upheld by the Appellate Court, vide judgment reported in 1978 P L C 506, wherein it was held, that M. C. P. is liable to pay all the outstanding dues of its predecessor organisation.

I, therefore, hold that the claim of the applicants is not adversely affected of their being WAPDA deputationists.

In the cases decided by this Court and learned Labour Court Hyderabad and cited under issue No. 1 above, it was held that the employees working in M. C. P. (the opponent) are entitled for the Project Allowance.

The opponent witness who is also happened to be deputationist from M. P. O. WAPDA, has admitted that he was also in receipt of Project Allowance..

In view of the above authorities and cross‑examination of opponent witness, I hold that the applicants are entitled to the claim.

I answer the issues accordingly.

The claim of the applicant is upto 3/75, and application for which has been filed in April 1981. The opponent has taken the objection that it is time barred. The M. C. P. is opponent organisation came into being in 1974.

In para. 6 of the application, the applicants have asserted that despite the decision of so many cases of the similar claim (referred to under issue No. 1 above) the opponent have not paid the claim to the applicants.

Exhs. A and B are copies of letter written by the opponent to the applicants, which show that the applicants are pursuing the claim with the opponent. Through these letters the applicants were informed that since the matter is sub judice in High Court, therefore their claim cannot be allowed till decision. These letters were sent in Decemb1980 and the applicants have filed their claim in April, 1982 is quite with in time.

It is proved that the applicants were bona fidely pursuing their claim, therefore I condone the delay in filing the claim.

The upshot of the above discussion is that the claim of the following applicants as shown against each is allowed :‑

The opponent is directed to deposit the above amount of his. 9,640 (Rupees nine thousand six hundred and forty) only, within thirty days in this Court for disbursement to the claimants.

A. E.

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.