1. Abdul Haque and Nawab Ali have filed separate applications under the Payment of Wages Act against the Divisional Superin--tendent, P. W. R., Lahore claiming deducted wages amounting to Rs.
2. 2,201 and Rs.1,500 respectively from the aforesaid respondent. The' following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the application is not maintainable under the Payment of Wages Act? O. P. R.
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to the wages claimed by him? O. P. P.
(3) Relief.
3. As both the cases were identical and the cause of action was the same, the counsel for the petitioners requested that the statements of P. W. I and P. W. 2 made in Case No. 84-P/67 be read as evidence in Case No. 86-P/67. The legal representative of the respondent also requested that the statement of R: W. 1 recorded in Case No. 86-P/67 be read as evidence in Case .No. 84-P/67 P. W. 1 Muzzafar Hussain General Secretary of the United Union P. W. R. Lahore has stated that both the petitioners came to him for making representation to the Railway Administration as they were not given the pay scale of the post against which they were working. He also received a letter from the Railway Authorities (No. 561-E/85/0-XI dated 21-1-1953) about their "case. According to the witness the petitioners were never declared unfit for the pay scale in which they were working but they were not paid the wages (as per terms of the contract of service) in spite of repeated representations to the Authorities. P. W. 2 M. Muhammad Shafi President of P. W. R. United Union has also supported the case of the petitioners and has stated that he personally approached the authorities to pay them the due wages according to the terms of their service. He also received a communication from the Railway Authorities (No. 561-E/85 and No. 561/E/10-A/P-XI dated 27-1-1953 and 7-9-1966) respectively. He has filed the copy of the letter Exh. P. W. 2/1. Both the petitioners have also made their statements before the Court and have stated that according to the terms of their service they were entitled to wages in the pay scale of Rs. 100-4-140, which' should have been given to them automatically as they wee--- working against this pay scale being the senior most incumbants. According to them their seniority was in the first 50 % strength o-- the staff. Exh. P. W.
4. 3/1 is the notification issued by the Finance Department of the Government. According to Abdul Haque and Nawab Ali petitioners the total amount of deducted wages payable to them up to September 67, comes to Rs. 2,201 and Rs. 1,500 respectively.
5. R. W. 1 Muhammad Anwar son of Ch. Muhammad Ali of D. S. Office, Lahore has stated before the Court that the petitioners were shown in the old pay scale of Rs. 60-2-80. He has admitted that the policy for giving higher scale of pay is seniority/fitness as given in Exh. R. W. 1/2. No orders were passed , by the P. W. R. Authorities giving the revised, pay scale to the petitioners. The only witness produced by the P. W. R. Authorities has not stated that the petitioners were ever declared unfit to be shown against the revised pay scale of Rs. 100-4-140, I have heard arguments from the counsel of both parties. In his arguments before the Court the counsel for the petitioners has stated that the consolidated pay scales were enforced w. e. f. 1-12- 1962 and the petitioners have been continuously working against the consolidated pay scale of Its.
6. 1000--4-140. According to him they were not paid the wages according to the pay scale of the post against which they were working although according to the terms of their service they were entitled to draw their wages in the consolidated pay scale. The attorney for the respondent has argued that as the sanction was not granted by the employer allowing the petitioner to draw their wades in the consolidated pay scale, they were not entitled to claim it. He has further argued that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the wages of the petitioner and has cited AIR 1955 SC 412 and AIR 1948 Leh. 202. The same authorities are quoted by the counsel for the petitioners in his arguments. He has Iso relied on PLD 1959 Kar. 701, P 1., D 1960 rah. 144, AIR 1949 FC 42 PLD 1959 Lah. 518, AIR 1958 Mad. 25 and AIR 1955 Pat. 320etc. He has also cited section:2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act in support of his arguments. From the evidence produced before me I am convinced that- as the petitioners were working against the consolidated pay scale enforced by the Railway Administrator in the year 1962 they were entitled to draw their wages in the consolidated pay scale.
7. According to the terms of their service, their seniority entitled them to draw the wages in the consolidated pay scale when there was nothing against them on record. The respondent has not been able to prove that the petitioners Abdul Haque and Nawtb Ali were not fit to work against the consolidated pay scale. In the absence of any such proof I hold that both the petitioners are entitled to claim their wages according to their applications and decide all the issues in their favour and against the respondent. Accordingly 1 order that the respondent should pay a stern of Rs. 2,201 and Rs. 1,500 up to September 1967, to Abdul Haque and Nawab Ali petitioners respectively.
8. They have claimed compensation for the deducted wages at the rate of 10 times compensation according to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. I do not agree with the request and allow them half the compensation i,e. 5 times of the actual deducted wages which is a under :- Rs.
(1) Abdul Haque Rs. 2201 plus Rs. 11005=13,206
(2) Nawab Ali Rs. 1,500 plus Rs. 7,500= 9,000 Total22,206 The respondent should therefore deposit a total amount of Rs. 22,206 in the Court for payment to Abdul Haque and Nawab Ali petitioners.