Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Petition No. LHR‑293 of 1984, decided on 12th May, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 2(c)‑‑Wages‑‑For purposes of gratuity, permanent allowances cannot be ignored‑‑Allowances of temporary nature cannot form part of wages.
1984 P L C 1171 ref.
P L D 1961 S C 495distinguished.
M. A. Gauhar for Petitioner.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 4th May, 1985.
The decision, dated 13‑10‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad in his appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, is reported to be wrong and improper.
2. Abdullah Khan, husband of respondent No.1 expired and dispute has arisen between the parties about his gratuity. The petitioner allowed gratuity on basic pay only whereas the claim of the respondent was that gratuity was to be calculated including all kinds of allowances. The plea of the respondent was accepted by both the Courts below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the judgment of this Tribunal, dated 18'3‑1985 and has argued that the gratuity is to be calculated on pay and not on allowances. On the other hand the representative of the respondent has relied upon 1984 PLC 1171 decided by this Tribunal wherein the gratuity was calculated on some of the allowances as well. Since the Authority of this Court was not cited in the case the copy of which has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, allowances were not considered while deciding the revision petition. Permanent allowances cannot be ignored while calculating the gratuity. However the allowances that are of temporary nature cannot form part of the wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited P L D 1961 S C 495 but it relates to bonus and thus is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. It has also been argued that according to toe rules of the petitioner gratuity is allowed at the rate of 30 days for every completed year, whereas the respondent has claimed gratuity at the rate of 45 days. The reply of the learned representative is that in the list of employees appended to the rules, the drivers are not mentioned, therefore, the said rule is not applicable. On the other hand reliance has been placed by the respondent on a settlement copy which is on the record. It was a settlement between the C.B.A. Rawilpindi and the petitioner in which it was decided that the gratuity would be allowed equal to 45 days for every completed year. The representative of the respondent has argued that the said settlement was made applicable by the petitioner in other depots as well, therefore, the respondent was rightly allowed gratuity at 45 days pay for every completed year. As I have already taken the view in the judgment, dated 18‑3‑1985 copy of which has been brought on the record by the petitioner, I do not find any reason to allow gratuity at the rate less than 45 days. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of both the Courts, therefore the revision is disallowed.
A.E. Revision disallowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer