SYED HAMID AL! SHAH,. J. --- 42 sanitary workers, employed in Town Committee, Kharian, filed a joint petition. Before the authority established under the Payment of Wages Act, claiming extra wages/double over-time for working on gazetted holidays from 21.5.1995 to 31 12.1995. The petitioner contested, the claim on various grounds, including the ground of maintainability of claim and that claim is barred by limitation The authority accepted the claim at rate of Rs. 18,340.90 per worker, and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 7,89,003/-, within one month. The petitioner assailed the said order in appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936. Learned Labour Court rejected the appeal through order dated 9.9 1998 The order of the Labour Court is assailed through instant revision petition under Section 38(3-A) of I.R.O., 1969. The revision' on abolition of Labour Appellate Tribunal has now been transferred to this Court under the provisions of I.R.O., 2002.
2. Various opportunities were given to the respondents for their representation but they remained - unrepresented. The petitioner's learned counsel was directed to effect service upon the respondents and in response thereto Younis Masih and Mushtaq Masih entered appearance. They were granted time to engage a counsel but have not turned up today. This is an old matter and cannot be. Kept pending for unstipulated period, the' respondents are .Thus proceeded against ex- parte.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that claim of the respondents is false and fictitious, barred by limitation and not maintainable before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Learned counsel in support of his claim, has referred to the case of T.M.A., Faisalabad v. Muhammad Saleem and others" (2006 T.D. (Labour) 147).
4. Admittedly, the respondents are employees of Tehsil Municipal Administration Kharian, The Act IV of 1936 applies to the persons employed in factory as defined in section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1934. Payment of Wages Act, does not apply to Municipal Committee or Municipal Administration Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of T.M.A., Faisalabad (supra) has held that:- 'The afore-said definitions of 'factory' and manufacturing process, if minutely kept in view,, would indicate ' that a Municipal Committee or a Municipal Administration does not at all fall within the definition of a factory1 and no manufacturing process' is undertaken therein or thereby. We would avoid tendering any further reasons or g rounds because the- same are elaborately discussed in our judgment of Town Committee, Gakhar Mandi, supra. Once, it is determined that the Municipal Committee/Administration is not 'factory' within the meanings of Factories Act, 1934, the employees thereof cannot by any stretch of reasoning, be held as workers specifically entitled to over-time payment Though some extra payment made to the employees at one time or at times is taken benefit of and is alleged as an estoppel against the Committee but it carries no weight because such payment was made on bonus in order to compensate the employees. The Committee may, of its own accord pay as much bonus to the employees for any extra work but the same cannot be claimed as of right by the employees as is done by the workers working in a 'Factory' defined by Factories Act, 1934."
5. Being guided by the above enunciation of law and dictum laid down in the above-said case, I have no hesitation to hold that impugned decision of learned Lahore Court dated 9.9.1998 and of the authority being without jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable and the same are set aside by allowing the instant petition.