' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-2- 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala allowing the grievance petition filed by the respondent to the extent that he is entitled to one year further pensionary benefits. The respondent has also filed cross-objections against the judgment of the learned Labour Court with the prayer that the impugned judgment may be modified by holding that the respondent is entitled for pensionary benefits for two years instead of one year and as such the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be dismissed, Since common question of law and facts is involved in this case, as such the appeal as well as the cross-objections are being disposed by means of this single judgment.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent joined WAPDA on 26-12-1968 when his age was about 16 years whereas according to the rules only a person not below the age of 18 years could be inducted into WAPDA service. The respondent continued to serve the department and ultimately retired on 13-8-2000 as LS-II from Muridke Sub-Division District Sheikhupura.
3. It is an admitted fact that the respondent Abdul Majeed Bhatti continued to get his pay from the day one of his joining service According to him he had rendered his service with the appellant department for a period of 31 years, 7 months and 17 days including period of service during minority. On the other hand the claim of the appellant department is that he had rendered service for a period of 30 years four months and 11 days as per the period computed by the department on attaining the age of majority and excluding the period of his service when he was a minor. The reason advanced by the WAPDA Authorities is that according to the rule the permissible age of joining WAPDA service is 18 years, therefore, the services rendered prior to that were not to be included in the pensionable service. It was however claimed by the respondent that instead of computing his period of service from 26-12-1968 upto 31-8-2000, the appellants should have counted his total period of service from the day one he joined the same. As such there was no valid ground for the appellant department to have deducted the period of his services with WAPDA during his minority. It is also admitted fact that the respondent had been paid his salary and other benefits during the period of his minority also.
4. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that a period of one year may be granted additionally to the respondent so that pension may be computed for another one year.
5. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
6. The main objection of the respondent was that this an arbitrary deduction. He had served for 31 years, 7 months and 17 days and according to pension rules if one serves for more than six months in a calendar year than it shall be taken as full one year for calculation of ensionary benefits.
7. The following facts are admitted:---
(a) That the respondent joined WAPDA service during his minority on 26-12-1968.
(b) That he had been getting pay for this period of minority from the WAPDA authorities.
(c) That two other employees i,e, Muhammad Zubair and Ghulam Jilani who were similarly placed had been granted the pensionary benefits inclusive of service period during minority.
(d) It has also not been disputed that if a person serves for more than six months in calendar year then the same period shall be computed as full one year.
8. Now the main attack of the learned counsel for the WAPDA side is that the Rules did not permit recruitment of a parson during minority. How one can go to admit and grant him benefits for the service under minority? This is an irregularity committed by the authorities which do not justify reckoning of the period served under minority. This argument is fallacious in as much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that no one shall take advantage of his own wrong (1996 PLC (C.S.) 348). Even otherwise in the case of Muhammad Zubair, retired Field Assistant, his period under minority was allowed to be computed towards pension vide order No,GM (P&D)/66- E/Admn/2003/9478-85 dated 24-10-2003 issued by Deputy Director (Admn) for General Manager (P&D). Similarly in respect of Mr. Ghulam Jilani Ex-Sanitary Worker retired on 31-12-2002 the Authority had been pleased to accord approval to the condonation of under age period of five months five days vide office order No,WWAdmn.-PN-1/90/E-III/462-66 dated 12-1-2004 issued by Deputy Director (Admin) Water E-III.
9.Now it becomes more than clear that in the first instance if WAPDA had committed an irregularity itself, the respondent Abdul Majeed Bhatti cannot be penalized for the fault of the department and secondly in the light of the precedent cases of Muhammad Zubair and Ghulam Jillani, the respondent is entitled to the same treatment.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has become hyper technical when he claims that the learned Labour Court at Ferozewala had no territorial jurisdiction as the office of the WAPDA Authority was situated within the area of Lahore. According to the respondent he belongs to Muridke- Sheikhupura where from his case of pension was not allowed as such the cause of action accrued to him in the area of Ferozewala and as such he had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of learned Labour Court No,3 Lahore at Ferozewala. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has no substance.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised another objection that the respondent stood retired in 2000 and he filed his grievance petition on 20-9-2006 which was grossly time-barred and the same merited dismissal immediately. It was however contended by the respondent that he had been agitating for his rights immediately after retirement when he received pension on wrong computation. He had in the first instance knocked the door of Federal Service Tribunal and after the decision announced in the celebrated case of Mubeen ul Islam he was driven to the Labour Court as such there is no delay in agitating his case. Pension is in fact a deferred part of the pay of an employee while he was putting his best efforts in rendering service to his employer during his hay days and this part was deferred to be paid to him periodically or otherwise to meet his old age needs. This is neither bounty nor a concession from any one. While discussing the nature of the pensionery benefits and its implications in case of I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division Islamabad and others (1991 SCM R 1041) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to quote the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court with approval in case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130 and People's Union for Democratic Rights and others v.
Union of India and others AIR 1982 SC 1473, the relevant para shortly reads:- "Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio- economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowances or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to the retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d' etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon."
' Since this has been declared as part of pay as such this was a continuing and recurring cause of action. No limitation is involved in such cases. The grievance petition thus was competent in every respect. Learned counsel for the appellant remained within the confines of technicalities. In fact the court's primary duty is to do substantial justice and of course within the frame work of law. So it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant department that the calculation was rightly made. In fact it should have been from the day one when he joined the appellant department.
12. As for the impugned judgment, the learned Labour Court while computing the correct period appears to have not been able to realize that in identical cases the WAPDA authorities had allowed to compute the period of services during minority into final computation of pension, therefore, in case of the respondent it should have been computed with effect from the day he joined service and the total period after computing would become 31 years, 7 months and 17 days and as such the respondent was entitled to get the pensionary benefits accordingly.
13. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment is modified. The appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed and the cross-objections submitted by the respondent as indicated above are accepted leaving the parties to bear their own costs.