Find a Lawyer

Revision No. FD‑432 of 1985 (Pb.), decided on 12th July, 1986.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑Grievance petition‑ Aggrieved employee directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits‑‑Entitlement of employee‑‑Where Labour Court had directed re‑instatement of worker without back benefits, such worker, held, would not be entitled to same‑‑As authority under Payment of Wages Act would have no jurisdiction to decide question of entitlement, no such claim could be preferred to such Authority.

1963 P L C 696; 1976 P L C 744 and 1980'P L C 106 distinguished.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 (1 of 1974), S. 7‑‑Gratuity, calculation of‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of revisional powers directed that gratuity of employee be calculated on cost of living allowance from date of entry into service, if at time such allowance was being paid, if not, from date the provision of payment of this kind of allowance was made.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner.

Ch. Mahboob Alam for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1986.

This is a revision reporting that the order, dated 3‑10‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad is wrong to the extent it did not allow back benefits and difference of gratuity amounting to Rs.11,366.

2. The facts of the case are that the services of the petitioner were terminated. He was directed to be re‑instated in service but back benefits were not allowed by the Labour Court. This being so, the Authority had no jurisdiction to grant the same. Needless to say that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction where there is a question of deduction of Wages or delay in the payment of wages. Where a Labour Court has directed the re‑instatement of a worker without back benefits, such a worker is not entitled to the same and as the Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question of entitlement, no such claim can be preferred to the said Authority. The learned representative of the petitioner has cited 1963 P L C 696, 1976 P L C 744 and 1980 P L C 106 and has argued that where a worker had been re‑instated in service, he becomes entitled to back benefits, therefore, the Authority should have allowed the same. In none of these authorities it is held that where the Labour Court had not allowed the back benefits, the Authority could allow the same. The said rulings, therefore, are not helpful to the petitioner.

3. So far as gratuity is concerned, it has been calculated on cost of living allowance from 1‑5‑1977 upto the date of termination order because section 7 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act was amended on 1‑5‑1977. It has been argued by the learned representative of the petitioner that cost of living allowance from the date of entry into service of the petitioner should have been included for the calculation of the gratuity. The line of his argument is that only those persons are not entitled to get gratuity on cost of living allowance who had been retired or terminated from service before section 7 of the Cost of Living (Relief) Act was amended, whereas the petitioner was in service on the date on which the said section was amended. The reason given by the learned representative is cogent.

4. As a result, the revision succeeds and accepting it, it is directed that gratuity be calculated on the cost of living allowance from the date of entry into service if at that time such an allowance was being paid and if not, from the date the provision of payment of this kind of allowance was made.

A. A.

Revision 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.