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.
Constitutional Petition No. S‑81 of 1985, decided on 9th November. 1986.
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Wages‑‑Compensation‑‑Wages not on account of deductions‑ --Authority, held, not empowered to award compensation at ten times of amount claimed‑‑Order of Authority passed otherwise declared erroneous.
Choudhry Rashid Ahmed for Petitioner.
Abdul Razzak Puri for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th November, 1986.
The facts of the case are, that one Ishrat Ali predecessor‑in -interest of the respondents in this petition was employed by the Pakistan Railways, the petitioner, as engine driver. He retired from service on 16‑7‑1981 at the age 58 years and two months, although the age of superannuation for the employees of Pakistan Railways was sixty years. Be that as it may, the said Ishrat Ali preferred a claim before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred as "the authority") for Rs.6,688.70 as wages due but not paid by the employer and 85.5,355 as due on account of future wages. The petitioner resisted the claim, however, the authority vide its order, dated 22‑9‑1984, allowed the same in full and ordered the petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs.9,060 to the aforesaid employee together with Rs.72,480 "as compensation equal to 8 times the deducted wages". The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the learned Vth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, who dismissed the appeal by its order, dated 24‑9‑1985 and upheld the order passed by the authority and hence this petition.
I have heard Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Purl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents.
The only contention raised by Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed is that the authority as well as the learned Labour Court have committed an error by awarding compensation equal to eight times the wages claimed by the employees, as according to the learned counsel, the wages were not claimed by him on account of deductions made by the petitioner but the same were claimed as delayed wages. Reference in this connection has been made to the prayer in the application made by the respondents' predecessor before the authority whereby wages had been claimed as "delayed wages". This factual position has not been contested by Mr. A.R. Purl, learned counsel for the respondent.
According to section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, on the application of an employed person himself or any legal practitioner, or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf or any Inspector under the Act or any heirs of such person who has died, the authority has been empowered, after holding an enquiry, to direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted or the payment of delayed wages together with payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and exceeding ten rupees in the latter. It is, therefore, clear that when the claim relates to deductions, then the authority is empowered to grant compensation which may be upto ten times the amount deducted by the employer and if the amount claimed is on account of delayed wages, the authority is empowered to award compensation upto ten rupees, besides the wages claimed by the employed person. Since in the present case, the wages were admittedly, not on account of deductions, the authority was not empowered to award compensation to the respondent's predecessor ac ten times the amount claimed. The authority in his order has made reference to the "Explanation" to section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, but reference to it appears to be completely misconceived as section 7 provides as under: ‑
‑‑ (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of section 47 of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890), the wages of an employed person shall be paid to him without deductions of any kind except those authorised by or under this Act.
‑‑Every payment made by the employed person to the employer or his agent shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a deduction from wages.
(2) deductions from the wages of an employed person shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and may be of the following kinds only, namely:‑‑
(a) fines;
(b) deductions for absence from duty;
(c) deductions for damages to or loss of goods expressly entrusted to the employed person for custody; or for loss of money for which he is required to account, where such damage or loss is directly attributable to his neglect or default;
(d) deductions for house‑accommodation supplied by the employer;
(e) deductions for such amenities and services supplied by the employer as the .......
(f) deductions for recovery of advances or for adjustment of over payments of wages;
(g) deductions of ,income‑tax payable by the employed person;
(h) deductions required to be made by order of a Court or other authority competent to make such order;
(i) deductions on subscriptions to, and for repayment of advances from, any provident fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925 (XIX of 1925) applied or any recognised provident fund as defined in (Clause 37) of section 2 of the Income‑tax Ordinance, 1979 (XXXI of 1979), or any provident fund approved in this behalf by the (Provincial Government) during the continuance of such approval;
(j) deductions for payments to cooperative societies approved by the Provincial Government or to a scheme of insurance maintained by the (Pakistan Post Office); and
(k) deductions, made with the written authorisation of the employed person, in furtherance of any War Savings Scheme approved by the Provincial Government, for the purchase of securities of the (Government of Pakistan) or the Government of the United Kingdom."
As is indicated by section 7, the explanation, was not attracted to this case since there were no allegations that any payment by the respondents' predecessor had been made to the petitioner. It, therefore, appears that the order passed by the authority was clearly in excess of the authority vesting in him. The order passed by the learned Labour Court, upholding such order was equally erroneous:
For the aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition to the extent that the respondents Nos.1 to 7 shall not be entitled to receive compensation of Rs.72,480 as ordered by the authority. The respondent l will, however, be entitled to receive rest of the amount awarded to them by the impugned order. In view of the questions raised in this petition, there will be no order as to costs.
M. Y. H '5177/Lb Petition partly allowed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer