Find a Lawyer

Revision No. FD‑172 of 1986, decided on 1st June, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Claim for over‑time wages, notice pay and encashment of leave‑‑Employee admittedly paid remunerations daily according to quantity of work done and no pay fixed and after getting remunerations not bound to come again for working‑‑Such employee being not a regular employee his claim thereto, held, was rightly rejected.

Muhammad Ashraf representative for Petitioner Shahid Azim for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th May, 1986.

This is a revision petition reporting that the order dated 15‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, No.5 Faisalabad in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is wrong and improper.

2. The petitioner claims to have remained regular employee of the respondent in the latter's factory by the name of Kashif Hosiery, that he daily gave overtime for four hours 'for about four years during which period he remained employee and in the meantime he never fell ill nor took any leave. His claim before the learned Authority was for arrears of pay from 1‑8‑1984 to 15‑8 1984, notice pay Rs.900, overtime for four hours daily from August, 1982 to 15‑4‑1984 amounting to Rs.10,800 pay of festival holidays for three years from 1981 to 1984 amounting to Rs.1,350 encashment of annual medical and casual leave for the period from 1981 to 1984 amounting to Rs.1,350, encashment of weekly and rest days for the period from 1981 to 1984 amounting to Rs.4,680 totalling Rs.19,530. His claim was accepted by the learned Authority but in appeal his petition was dismissed.

3. In support of his claim the petitioner appeared as his own witness and examined Akbar Ali, P.W.2 who, deposed that he worked in the respondent establishment where the petitioner worked. In cross- examination he admitted that his pay and pay of his employees was not fixed and that they were paid wages according to the quantity of work done by them. He also admitted that the respondent used to get prepared bags and hand-covers on contract and that no factory by the name of Kashif Hosiery was existing. He admitted his signatures on contract Exh.R.l. Akbar Ali was re‑examined as P.W.3 but his statement was not completed. He had in the said incomplete statement deposed that he never worked as a contractor with the respondent and that the respondent had received by fraud his signatures on contract‑deed.

4. In view of the admissions made by the petitioner in cross -examination he has no case for claiming overtime wages, arrears of pay and other dues. This is true that since Akbar Ali was recalled as witness, his statement should have been completed, but since on account of the admissions made by the petitioner, his claim could not be allowed, it is unnecessary to remand the case. He admitted in cross‑examination that hand-covers and bags were packed after they were prepared by women in their own houses. He also admitted that remunerations were paid according to the quantity of work done and no pay was fixed. He also admitted that the workers were paid daily and that after getting remunerations, it was the sweet will of the workers to come or not to come again for working. It is clear from the abovementioned admissions made by the petitioner that neither the petitioner, nor any other person was regular employee of the respondent and that remunerations for packing of the articles were paid according to the quantity of work done. There was no permanent employee and every person was free to' come or not to come again. This piece of evidence was not considered by the learned Authority and, therefore, wrongly accepted the claim of the petitioner. The learned lower appellate Court scrutinized the evidence and came to the right conclusion that the petitioner was not a regular employee of the respondent as claimed by him. Since he was not, as admitted by him, a regular employee and used to get remunerations according to the quantity of work done, no question of giving overtime, notice pay and encashment of leave of tiny kind could arise. In these circumstances, the learned lower appellate Court rightly accepted the appeal and dismissed the petition brought by the petitioner under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.

5. As a result, the revision petition being without any force, is dismissed.

A.E.

Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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