Find a Lawyer

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑

‑‑‑S.15‑,Jurisdiction‑‑Fixation of pay‑‑Jurisdiction conferred by S.15 on Authority under Payment of Wages Act, held, was limited in nature which could extend to giving directions in regard to payment of wages or amount deducted etc. and, did not empower Authority to determine whether pay of workers had been properly fixed by employer in accordance with pay scale applicable to them‑‑Authority could grant wages which actually were due but could not enter into an enquiry to determine as to what the wages ought to be‑‑Order of Labour Court to same effect maintained.

Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan v. Sardar Muhammad and 2 others P L D 1983 Lah. 291 ref.

A.V. D' Costa Divisional Engineer, G.I.P. Railway v. B.C. Patal and another A I R 1955 S C 412 and Anthony Sabastian Almeda v. R.M. Taylor and another A I R 1956 Bom. 737 rel.

Abdul Razak Puri for Petitioner.

Chaudhry Rashid Ahmed for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 27th November, 1986.

The petitioners in this case were employed by Pakistan Railways, the second respondent, as Diesel Shunting Drivers. Before 1‑3‑1972 each one of them was drawing a fixed salary of Rs.350 per month, but after introduction of National Pay Scales on the aforesaid date, the petitioners' salary was fixed as Rs.410 per month according to National Pay Scale No.8. Subsequently, on 1‑7‑1973 the Federal Government allowed two advance increments to the petitioners after which they became entitled to receive a salary of Rs.425 per month. Since salary of each of the petitioners had touched the maximum in pay scale No.8, the petitioners were shifted to Pay Scale No.9 being the next scale according to which the salary paid to petitioners was Rs.440 per month. The petitioners were, however, dissatisfied with the fixation of their salary as such as the stand taken by the petitioners was, that according to this pay scale, the salary of the petitioners should have been Rs.460 per month. Consequently, in 1980 the petitioners filed applications under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to "the Act"), inter alia, alleging that respondent No.2 had wrongly fixed their salaries and as such they were entitled to receive the deficit from the respondent No.2 as delayed wages. Although the application was resisted by the respondent No.2, both on factual as well as legal grounds, nevertheless the claim of the petitioners was allowed by the authority. Aggrieved by such order, the respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the learned Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, the respondent No.1, which by its order, dated 23‑1‑1983 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the authority. The learned Labour Court held that the claim of the petitioners was not maintainable before the authority under section 15 of the Act since the petitioners had retired from service before filing of such claim before the authority, and further, that the authority was not competent to go into the question of fixation of pay of the petitioners.

I have heard Mr. A. Razak Puri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chaudhry Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

Mr. A. Razaq Puri has raised a two‑fold contention before me. His first contention has been that the petitioner at the time of filing of the application under section 15 had not retired from service and were still serving with the respondent No.2, therefore, the findings of the learned Labour Court on this factual aspect of the case were erroneous. The second contention of the learned counsel has been that since the respondent No.2 had failed to fix the salary in accordance with the national pay scale the same amounted to delay in payment of wages which clearly gave jurisdiction to the authority to determine the petitioners' claim.

As far as the first contention of Mr. Razaq Puri is concerned, the factual position stated by Mr. Puri has not been controverted by Mr. Abdul Rashid Chaudhry, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, and therefore, the same has to be accepted as correct. However, the next contention of Mr. A. Razaq Puri appears to be without force. It may be pointed out in this respect, that the authority while allowing the applications of the petitioners, came to the conclusion that the pay of the petitioner had been erroneously fixed by the respondent No.2 and, therefore, the petitioners had been wrongly deprived of the amount claimed by them and consequently, the claim of the petitioner was allowed. The authority, it seems, by granting the claim of the petitioners has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction as according to subsection (1) of section 15 of the Act, the authority has been empowered "to hear and decide all claims arising out of deductions from the wages...or delay in the payment of wages of persons employed." According to subsection (3) of section 15, the authority can direct refund of wages wrongly deducted from or payment of delayed wages etc. to any employed person. The jurisdiction conferred by section 15 to the Act on the authority thus appears to be of limited nature which can extend to giving of directions in regard to payment of wages or the amount deducted, etc. only but nothing can be spelled out from the language of section 15 of empower the authority to determine whether the pay of the petitioners had been properly fixed by the respondent No.2 in accordance_ with the pay scale applicable to them. In other words, the authority can grant wages which actually are, but it cannot enter into an enquiry to determine as to what the wages ought to be. Although Mr. A. Razaq Puri has relied upon the case of the Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Multan v. Sardar Muhammad and 2 others P L D 1983 Lah. 291 wherein it was held that the authority had the jurisdiction to decide questions relating to fixation of pay by the Railway employees, but with utmost respect to the views expressed in this case, I cannot persuade myself to endorse the same view. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of A. V. D' casts Divisional Engineer, G.I.P. Railway v. B.C. Patal and another A I R 1955 S C 412 wherein the Supreme Court of India has held as follows:‑

"The appellant is responsible to pay the respondent only such wages as are shown in the relevant register of wages presumably maintained by the department under the provisions of the Act, but he cannot be directed to pay the respondent higher wages on the determination by the authority that he should have been placed on the monthly wages scheme."

Similarly in Anthony Sabastian Almeda v. R.M. Taylor and another AIR 1956 Bom. 737 it was held by the High Court of Bombay, that:‑

"In our opinion, the jurisdiction of the Authority is limited to decide what is contract in the sense the construing the contract in order to determine the liability of the employer to pay wages. But when the employer and the employee come before him and rely on different contracts it is not within the jurisdiction to decide which of the two contracts hold the field, which of them is subsisting and under which of them the employer is liable to pay wages."

The upshot of the entire discussion is, that authority had no jurisdiction to go into the question of fixation of wages of the petitioner and the learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent No.2 and set aside the order of the authority.

For the aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed but in view of the points raised, there will be no order as to costs.

M . Y . H . /N‑15/ K

Petition 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.