' The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that respondent No,1 was in service of Doaba Rice Mills Ltd. As an Accountant w,e,f, 2-1-1976. The Government of Pakistan privatized all the projects and took under control the management of the Petitioner Corporation and the privatized projects were sold to the new purchasers. The policy was formulated according to the Privatized Commission for payment of workers dues and for the purpose of retirement and relieving under golden Handshake Some of the unionized staff was allowed Golden Handshake after the voluntary resignation, and the benefits of the Golden Handshake was allowed at the rate of four last basic pay drawn for each year of service rendered. The respondent No,1 was considered by the petitioner as Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan as unionized staff and his dues were calculated and given according to the aforesaid formula. The Petitioner corporation, later on held it an inadvertant error and recovered the excess amount from respondent No,1. The respondent No,1 alongwith others being aggrieved filed a Writ Petition No,5671 of 1994 which was decided by my learned brother S.A.
Manan, J. With the direction that the petitioner may move the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division (Privatization Commission) as to the relief of provident fund which representation, if filed, shall be decided within three months. The respondent moved to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman observed that 30 workers had moved to the High Court for the refund of the amount in their wages and the High Court had directed that the case be sent to the Ministry of Finance who will decide the same. Therefore, as per direction of the High Court the case was sent to the Ministry of Finance for decision and it was also directed that when the Ministry of Finance gives the decision the Commission will decide the case in the light of the same. The learned Ombudsman considered the complaint of the Respondent No,1 as premature and dismissed the same.
3. The respondent No,1 moved to the Court of Commission for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages A Act, 1936, West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. The Commission observed that "the respondent No,1 was employer of petitioner Who did not make payment to the respondent No,1 and also did not fulfil his legal obligation. During the course of proceedings the respondent No,1 had proved his case against the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs,2,40,013 in this Court within 30 days of the announcement of this order for onward disbursement to the petitioner in due course of time". The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 24-2-1998 holding the appeal being time-barred under section 12(6)(i) of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 dismissed the appeal. The instant writ petition challenges both the concurrent judgments of the learned Courts below.
4. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the Authorities below had redressed illegally the grievance of the petitioner without having jurisdiction. As the claim of the respondent No,1 was not covered under wages and the case has already been adjudicated upon the two forums i,e,. The Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,5671 of 1994 and the learned Ombudsman. The learned Ombudsman had already dismissed the petition being pre-matured.
The respondent No,1 could not be reimbursed against Scale No,6 He in fact being a clerical unionized staff was entitled to the benefits of unionized staff.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent placed the copies of the evidence produced by the respondents, where R.W.I is Shafqat Mehmood who stated on oath that the respondent No,1's move-over was in Scale No,6 and his basic pay was Rs,4,900 per month. He resigned on 28-8-1993 in lieu of golden handshake scheme. After the clarification of the Privatization commission under the golden handshake scheme the emoluments of ,the unionized Scale No,5 were paid. He produced copies of Exh. R-1 and Exh.R-2. In cross-examination he stated that it is correct that the Privatization Commission according to the agreement under Golden Hand-Shake Scheme had to consider the last salary and it is correct that the salary of the respondent was Rs,5,100 per month, therefore, his emoluments were Rs,4,14,864 and he was paid Rs,3,23,994 only and the remaining amount was not paid to him. He also admitted that the respondent No,1 was entitled to gratuity on the basis of his recent pay and that the move-over was given to the respondent No,1 in Scale No,6 according to' the agreement of the administration and C.B.A. The Authority rightly decided that the respondent No,1 was employed by petitioner who did not make payment of his outstanding legal dues. Therefore, he did not fulfil his legal obligation. He further submitted that the matter was moved to the Ministry of Finance as per direction of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition and the learned Ombudsman also decided the case of the respondent No,1 being pre-matured. The Commission could not decide the case of the respondent No,1 as the matter was pending before the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below are well- reasoned.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The perusal of the record shows that the respondent No,1 was legally entitled for his outstanding dues according to Scale No,6 as by the time an agreement took place between C.B.A. And the administration under Golden Hand-Shake Scheme and the respondent No,1 had already received the same as compensation worker. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Authority whose order is impugned in the instant writ petition as the order pertains to date 6-5-1997 and the appeal against the same was dismissed as time-barred under the law. The moveover was given to the respondent No,1 in Scale No,6 and he was entitled as a matter of right to receive his legal dues according to his last salary and his last salary was admittedly Rs,4,900 as his previous salary of Rs,3600 increased due to the move-over and he was entitled to the back-benefits according to his officer scale. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No,1 was entitled to payment of his wages for the purpose of retirement and relieving under Golden Hand-Shake as unionised staff as a clerical worker of unionized staff is not convincing. Therefore, no interference is made in the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
9. No orders as to costs.