The appellants have filed this appeal on 1-3-1979 being aggrieved and dis--satisfied by the order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad dated 6-2-79 by which order the learned Authority had allowed a claim of Rs. 9,208 in favour of the respondent against the appellants towards the payment of employees provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment for 120 days.
2. The said order is challenged by the appellant on the ground that the claims for employees provident fund and gratuity were admitted but the Authority was not legally competent to grant the same and the respondent has failed to prove that he was entitled to leave encashment of 120 days. Project allowance of Rs. 2,160, as claimed by respondent in the original application was dropped subsequently. It is further asserted by the appellant that he was entitled to adjustment of Rs. 700, as notice pay and Rs. 3,01,062 towards loss of spare wheel and the said amount of Rs.
3,71.062, were illegally not allowed by the said Authority which he has claimed in this appeal.
3. The claim of employees' provident fund and gratuity is admitted by the appellant in his written statement. It is argued by Mr. Memon A. Latif on behalf of the appellant that the gratuity and employees' provident fund are excluded from definition of wages under section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act and hence the Authority could not grant the said amounts. The contention of Mr. M. Bashir Awan Advocate for the respondent is that the application for the said claims could be made under section 15(i) of the Payment of Wages Act as the same could be claimed beside the wages as defined in the said Act. Subsection (2) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act is also amended by Labour. Laws Amendment Act, 1977 and according to that amendment the claim for provident fund and gratuity are included in that subsection. Thus I hold that the Authority had jurisdiction to grant the claim for gratuity and employees provident fund which was duly admitted by the appellant.
4. The next contention of the appellant is that the respondent failed to prove that he was entitled to 120 days leave encashment under S. O. 12(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The appellant has not specifically denied this claim in his written statement. The respondent had given on oath that he was entitled to this amount. The record of leave etc. Of the service of the respondent was with the appellant but he failed to prove by his record that the respondent was not entitled to the said claim. I therefore come: to the conclusion that amount of Rs. 1,700, towards encashment leave of 120 days was rightly allowed by the learned Authority.
5. The appellant had claimed adjustment of Rs. 700, towards notice pay as the respondent resigned without notice and a sum of Rs. 3,010.62 towards loss of spare wheel. The appellant failed to establish as to how he was entitled to adjust the notice pay of Rs. 700, after he had accepted his resigna--tion from the amounts claimed by the respondent. At the appellate stage the appellant filed two fresh documents namely charge-sheet dated 2-10-75 marked `A' regarding loss of that spare wheel worth Rs. 1,715, given to respondent and his explanation marked 'B' bearing note of the appellant dated 13-10-75 . By consent of the respondent's Advocate the said documents are admitted in evidence. As per said charge-sheet the value of spare wheel is shown as Rs. 1,715, while in written statement it was shown as Rs. 3,010.62 and no receipt for the same was produced in the lower Court. The appellant could claim the said damage under section 7(2)(c) read with section 10 of the Payment of Wages Act. No register was produced to show that the said. Amount was outstanding against the respondent. As per provision of sec--tion 10 of the said Act charge-sheet marked 'A' appears to have been issued to which the respondent replied as per marked `B' on which there is a note of the Officer of the appellant that it is strongly recommended that the respondent be excused as this was the first time and this note bears signature of Manager Workshop who issued charge-sheet marked 'A'. Thus it appear that the claim for the loss of spare wheel was neither established against the respondent and the same appears to have been dropped. Thus the appellant cannot claim adjustment of the value of the spare wheel from the said claim of wages. The Authority has therefore rightly refused the adjustment of both the said amounts.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the law and the evidence I come to the conclusion that the claim of the respondent has been rightly and legally allowed by the Authority and the appellant has failed to establish that the order of the Authority was not according to law. Consequently the appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.