Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.l6 of 1985, decided on 25th May, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Appeal against order of Authority‑‑Plea that wages of employee concerned exceeded Re. 1,000 and as such could not invoke jurisdiction of Authority‑‑Plea not raised before Authority, held, could not for first time be agitated in appeal.

M. M. Aqil for Appellant.

M. Bashir Awan for Respondent.

Mahmoodul Hassan, respondent herein, approached the Authority order Payment of Wager Act, for the recovery of bonus amounting to Rs.16,567, This bonus has been claimed on behalf of 36 persons. Their claim is based on the ground that one month wages were permitted by the appellant/opponent in recognition, of the employees untiring and dedicating efforts in completing of the project known as "Hubdam Project" as per Annexure 'A' to the application. Their grievance is that it was allowed to nearly all employees except the applicants/ respondents. This claim was resisted before the learned Authority and in its written statement the management pleaded that the applicants were on deputation from WAPDA Department and so they are not regulated by the provisions of S.O. Ordinance, 1968. Moreover, the management is not covered by the Factories Act as it is neither a factory nor is an industrial unit. Accordingly, the learned Authority had no jurisdiction in the matter. They pleaded that one month bonus was no doubt allowed but it was not permitted to those workers who were not concerned with the workshop business. These applicants were said to be on the rolls of the maintenance, equipment and security departments and so they were not allowed such bonus. Moreover, these persons were in Iraq working at K‑2 Project and they had no entitlement for this bonus.

2. After evidence, the learned Authority by its order, dated 14‑4‑1985 allowed the claim and directed the appellant to deposit Rs.16, 567 and this order has now been assailed in this appeal.

3. I have heard Mr. M.M. Aqil, Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. M. Bashir Awan, counsel for the respondent. I have also examined the material on record.

4. The first submission is in regard to non‑maintainability of the application on the grounds that the applicants/ respondent being on deputation from WAPDA, are civil servants and are not covered by the Labour Laws and, secondly, that the learned Authority had no jurisdiction because the appellants organization is not a factory. These very objections were also raised by Mr. Aqil in appellants another Appeal No.15‑85 under section 17 P.W.A. M.C.P. v. Wazir Khan but' I have overruled these objections by giving my detailed reasons in that case and it is needless to recapitulate the reasons here as well. I would accordingly repel these objections as well.

5. Reverting to the merits of this case, the submission of Mr. Aqil is that the applicants led no evidence before the Authority to show that they contributed in any manner in the completion of the Hubdam Project and so they would not be entitled to one month bonus paid to other workers. His second submission is that admittedly the applicants were in Iraq and they returned back to Pakistan in the year 1981 as admitted by the solitary witness of the respondents. The project however was completed in the year 1979. It has also been urged that averments made in the affidavit in evidence filed on behalf of the appellants were not questioned in cross and so the same stood established. Lastly, it has been contended that some of the workers were drawing more than Rs.1,000 p.m. and so they had no locus stands to invoke the jurisdiction of the Authority.

6. Mr. Awan submitted that according to letter Exh. B annexed to the application before the learned Authority, the concession of payment of bonus was also extended to the workers working in workshop upto grade‑15. The applicants were also working in the workshop under the control of Mr. Basharat Ali, Deputy Manager/ Workshop Manager. The solitary witness of the appellant has also admitted in cross‑examination that the bonus was also paid to the workers working in workshop and that this workshop, warehouse, equipment office and security staff were under the Manager Workshop and Warehouse. Accordingly, the applicants were also entitled to the said bonus. Mr. Awan has also referred to an order, dated 30‑11‑1980 passed by the Authority in Case No. 5‑80 whereby other similar workers were allowed bonus and which remained in field throughout.

7. After going through the record I find that the bonus was permitted to all the employees/ workers employed either at the Hub dam or were posted in the workshop. This has also been admitted in the written statement as well as in the affidavit in evidence filed by the appellants. The applicants/ respondents were also employed under the Works Manager and so it cannot be urged that they were not entitled to the payment of bonus. This plea was also urged before the learned Authority in the previously instituted' case, referred to above, but it was rejected and the management did not prefer any appeal. Once the matter was decided by a Court of law and‑ the same was acted upon without any protest, the management cannot be permitted to re‑agitate the same point in a case based on the factual and legal position.

8. In so far as the plea of the applicants remaining in Iraq is concerned suffice it to say, that according to the material on record the applicants had worked in Iraq hardly for two years and returned back to Pakistan in the year 1981. This means that they certainly remained in Pakistan during 1974‑79 in which period the Hubdam Project was commenced and completed. The other workers of the same cadre and who had also gone for some time to Iraq have already been paid in pursuance of the directions of the learned Authority and so the applicants cannot be denied this concession.

9. There has been no plea or evidence in regard to the wages of any person exceeding to Rs.1,000 p.m. before the learned Authority and so this plea cannot be agitated for the first time in appeal.

10. In view of the above, this appeal has no merits and so is dismissed. The amount deposited be paid to the applicants/ respondents. R & P be sent back.

A.E. Appeal 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.