Find a Lawyer

Revision No. FD-207 of 1985, decided on 22nd January, 1986.

---Ss. 15 & 17--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3-a)--Gratuity and property of worker concerned become payable on termination of service--Vests in heirs of deceased worker--Claimant alleging before Authority that there was no other heir--Authority, in circumstances, held, must publish notice in newspapers to ascertain correctness of claim--Order of Authority passed without such notice maintained in appeal by Labour Court--Both orders set aside in revision by Labour Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Authority.

Muhammad Ashraf representative of Petitioner. Syed Iftikhar Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1986.

The decision, dated 18-6-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.

2. Sardar Masih was an employee of the respondent and on his death question of the disbursement of gratuity and other dues arose. The petitioner brought an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on the plea that he was an adopted son ot the deceased. The learned Authority accepted his plea and directed the deposit of the amount. The learned lower appellate Court has, however, found that no reliable evidence was produced by the petitioner in support of his plea of being an adopted son of the deceased. The plea of the petitioner is that the deceased was a bachelor, whereas his witness the Priest said that the deceased had married but his wife had died. He did not say clearly that the wife of the deceased had predeceased him. If the deceased had a wife and she had died after him, she inherited the property left by the deceased and on her death, her own heirs would be entitled to her share. The gratuity and other dues, if any, were the property of Sardar deceased and the respondent was only the trustee as gratuity becomes payable on the termination of services. Possession of property is not necessary and only ownership is sufficient. Since Sardar Masih was owner of the amount of gratuity, as soon as he died, the said property vested in his heirs who ever they were. Thus, his property vested in his wife if she was existing on his death and on her death her share vested in her own heirs. This aspect of the case was not considered by the learned Authority. In such cases where it is alleged by the claimant that the deceased left no other heir, it is necessary to publish a notice of the application given under section 15 in a daily newspaper of wide circulation to the effect that if any person claims to be the heir of the deceased besides the person who has brought the application, he may come forward and contest the application. In the present case this was not done.

3. The learned lower appellate Court has entertained a doubt if adoption is or is not allowed in Christianity. It may be said in this respect that a thing, which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed. In Islam no doubt adoption is prohibited but since in the present no party has objected to it, there was no justification to entertain such a doubt. So the point is: left open to be decided by the learned Authority.

4. As a result, the revision is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower appellate Court, the case is remanded to the learned Authority for redecision in the light of the observations made above after getting a notice to Public in General published in some newspaper of wide circulation at the expenses of the petitioner and after taking evidence if the existing parties or any new persons who come forward to claim themselves as the heirs of the deceased, wish to produce.

A.E.

Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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