' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.--- This revision petition has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of instant revision petition are that the respondent No,1 filed a claim under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for payment of his dues which was resisted by petitioner with the stance that respondent No,1 's claim of gratuity, annual leaves and bonus had already been paid. Petitioner prayed dismissal of respondent No, 1 's claim. The Authority/respondent No,2 recorded statement of respondent No,1 as PW-1. Respondent No,1 produced details of his claim as Ex.A-1, his factory card Ex.AII, Social Security Card Ex.A-III, EOBI Card Ex.IV, appointment letter Ex.A-V and resignation letter as Ex.A-VI also.
3. Conversely, Mr. Babar Saleem Khan HR Coordinator stepped in witness box and stated after producing his authority letter as Ex.R-1 that Riasat Ali had been serving in the petitioner's factory from 2005 to April 2011; He withdrew his salary of last month i.e, Rs,9200/:-. There after the respondent No,1 submitted his resignation; Further deposed that the employees were to be paid gratuity till 2008 and afterwards scheme of Provident Fund was introduced. The respondent No,1 showed inclination to become part of later scheme, but afterwards refused to do so and was paid gratuity. Babar Saleem Khan (RW) produced proof of payment of gratuity as Ex R-2 and Ex. R-3. He also stated that respondent No,1 was paid annual leaves and produced documentary proof i.e, Ex.
R-4 and Ex.R-5. RW also stated that respondent No,1 was paid dues of bonus and submitted documentary proof as Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7. The petitioner produced Ex.R-8 that all dues had been paid to Riasat Ali. As a result, the Authority/respondent No,2 dismissed the respondent No, 1 's claim vide order dated 30.5.2013 which has been impugned in this petition.
4. The matter was adjudicated upon by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore who vide judgment dated 23.4.2014 disposed of the matter between the parties in the following terms:- "Record shows that respondent No,1 had not disputed that appellant's employment and furnishing of his resignation to respondent No,1, Main controversy is whether appellant was paid his claim or not because quantum of appellant's claim had not been disputed. Appellant filed claim with his statement as Ex. A-1 regarding gratuity w .e. f.
01.0.2005 to 31.5.2011 amounting to Rs,63,692/-, Rs,10,000/- in lieu of 28 days annual leaves and Rs,27,600/- bonus of years 2008, 2009 and 2010 and produced Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-6 in this regard.
Admitted facts need not to be proved. As stated above, the factory/respondent No,1 produced Babar Saleem Khan (RW) who produced documentary evidence Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-8 to substantiate his stance that amount claimed by the appellant had already been paid to him. Perusal of record shows that learned appellant's counsel while cross-examining Babar Saleem Khan had been suggesting that Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-8 are bogus and prepared by putting fictitious signatures of appellant, whereas the above referred documents i.e, Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-8 had not been confronted to Riasat Ali (appellant) while he was facing cross-examination to provide him opportunity either to deny or accept genuineness of his signatures upon the above said documents. I have seen said documents produced on behalf of factory carefully. The appellant's signatures had been shown on revenue tickets and likelihood cannot be ruled out that those tickets were pasted belatedly on those documents to defeats the appellant claim. It is also relevant to mention here that respondent/factory produced Ex.R-8 to establish that appellant received all dues, but detail of the appellant's claim does not find mention in it which also falsifies stance of respondent/factory. So conclusion arrived at by respondent No,2 is not in consonance with established norms of justice and impugned order dated 30.5.2013 is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, the order passed by the Authority is hereby set aside by accepting this appeal and matter is remanded to the Authority to get imbursed appellant's dues (Rs,101,292/-) from the factory/respondent No,1 within one month after receipt of this order and record."
5. Hence this revision petition on the grounds mentioned therein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia, contended that the documentary evidence was produced and exhibited in presence of the respondent No,1 but he did not raise any Objection at the stage of trail, as such the documents produced by the petitioner attained authenticity and now could not be objected. Further contended that the learned Labour Court has also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. The impugned judgment is based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence produced by the petitioner. The learned Labour has not appreciated the contents of the written reply along with enclosures filed by the petitioner and hammered the law and equity while passing the impugned judgment in slipshod manner. The written comments along with its enclosures and oral as well documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was very comprehensive and promptly supported by the relevant documents which prima facie proves the case of the petitioner but the learned Labour Court has misread the same and has thus committed gross miscarriage of law while passing the impugned judgment and prayed that revision petition be accepted and impugned judgment be set aside.
7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has vehemently opposed the arguments and the grounds of petition and argued in favour of impugned judgment. Learned counsel further added that the petitioner department got signatures of respondent No,1 on revenue stamp and were affixed on the payment vouchers, in fact the respondent No,1 never received the amount claimed and argued in favour of impugned judgment.
8. Arguments of both the sides heard record perused.
9. The respondent No,1 has claimed his gratuity amount w.e.f, 1.6.2005 to 31.5.2011 amounting to Rs,63,692/-, Rs,10,000/- in lieu of 28 days annual leave and Rs,27,600/- on account of bonus for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. In this regard the respondent No,1 produced Ex.A-2 to Ex. A-6 there is no controversy about the quantum of claim. On the other side the petitioner has produced documentary evidence Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-8. Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 are gratuity claim form, which bear the original signatures of the respondent No,1 Ex.R-5 is original record of annual leave 2010 which is duly signed by respondent No,1 at Serial No,
29. Ex.R-6 and 7 are the record of receipt of bonus for the years 2010 and 2011. The respondent No,1 put his hands on all the above documents which are original documents.
10. This Tribunal has gone through the statement of respondent No,1 which he made as Aw-1 before the learned Lower Court in which the respondent No,1 had made a categoric statement that he did not receive any amount on account of gratuity, annual leave or bonus amount from 2008 to 2010.
While during cross-examination on Babar Saleem Khan HR Coordinator the suggestions were put that the signatures of respondent No,1 on Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-7 are forged. During the arguments learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 categorically admitted that the signatures of the respondent No,1 are genuine which were obtained on stamp prior and latter on the stamps were affixed on the payment voucher. This contradictory argument completely negate the version of respondent No,1 side. Similarly all the voucher i.e, Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-7 were exhibited in presence of both the sides without any objection. So at this belatedly stage respondentNo,1 will not be allowed to raise a new or contradictory plea. The petitioner has proved his case beyond any shadow of doubt, that the department had paid the amount of claim of the respondent No,
1. The petitioner in addition to oral evidence, produced documentary evidence. On the other hand the respondent No,1 appeared as AW-1. Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-8 are original documents duly signed by respondent No,1. Such solid documentary evidence could not be rebutted by solitary short statement of respondent No,1.
Similarly the respondent could not provide explanation in relation with letter dated 30.04.2011 written and signed by respondent No,1 in the name of Manager HR in which he requested to release his dues. Similarly in letter dated 13.06.2011 the respondent No,1 acknowledged the receipt of his total dues.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition is accepted impugned judgment is set aside with this finding that the respondent No,1 has received entire amount of his gratuity w.e.f, 1.6.2005 to 31.5.2011 amounting to Rs,63,692/- Rs,10,000/- in lieu 28 days annual leave and Rs,27,600/- on account of bonus for the years 2001 to 2010.