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.
Revision Petition No. LHR‑359 of 1985, decided on 15th December,1985.
‑‑‑ Pay‑‑Conveyance allowance for travelling to place of duty and back‑‑Not a part of pay for calculating over‑time wages except when over‑time done on holidays.
1983 S C M R 916 ref.
S.A. Latif for Petitioners.
Saifullah Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 9th December, 1985.
The decision, dated 9‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the learned lower appellate Court have unanimously held that conveyance allowance cannot be included in ordinary rate of pay while calculating overtime wages. This kind of allowance is paid for travelling to the place of duty and coming back. When a worker does not go to discharge his duty, this allowance is not paid, such as when he is on long leave. Casual leave is different from earned leave. It is for a short period and the incumbent does not relinquish the charge, whereas while, going on a long leave, one has to relinquish the charge. He is thus not considered on duty and is not entitled to conveyance allowance. It is thus apparent that this allowance is conditional and is paid when a worker goes on duty. Other thing is that the intention of the parties is not that this kind of allowance should be treated as part of pay. If this had been their intention then it would have been allowed even to those employees who go on long leave. There is another reason for which this allowance cannot be included in ordinary rate of pay for the calculation of overtime wages. Since it is paid for travelling to the place of duty and for returning to home, the employees, who give overtime by overstaying the normal duty hours, are not entitled to it. They are not required to go to the house on the close of the normal duty hours and to come back for giving overtime. So, for giving overtime they have not to travel to the place of duty and to return home. However, when an employee is required to give overtime by working on holidays, this allowance may be included in his pay while calculating overtime wages as such an employee has to travel to the place of duty and go home after he is free. This is not the case of the petitioners that they worked on holidays. 1983 S C M R 916 has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners but the same rather goes against the petitioners. No doubt it has been observed that the term "remuneration" is wider than the terms 'wages', salary, fees or other payments, but allowances or moneys to be spent to cover expenses incurred by the worker have been excluded. Conveyance allowance is paid for maintaining a conveyance or to defray expenses incurred by the employees for travelling to the place of duty and for travelling back to their houses after discharging their duties. An employee may actually travel on foot to save money according to his own sweet will but so far as the employer is concerned, he pays the conveyance allowance to fecilitate the employee to proceed to the place of duty and to go back or to defray the expenses incurred by the employee for proceeding to the place of duty. So, the ruling of the Supreme Court rather supports my view. The Courts below, therefore, rightly refused to include conveyance allowance in ordinary rate of pay for calculating overtime wages.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is consequently dismissed.
A. E.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer