CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.---This revision petition has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 2 Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case as per contents of revision petition are that Rehmat Ali, the petitioner filed a claim before the Authority with the contention that the petitioner served the respondent's Bank as SSG Guard since October, 1996 as workman. The labour laws are fully applicable upon his service structure. The respondent No,1 is a commercial establishment, as being explained under Company Ordinance, 1962. On 10/03/2006, a retrenchment policy was effected and 2343 regular non-clerical employees were retrenched and about 250 SSG Guards were effected by the said policy.
Respondent's bank paid all the dues to the retrenched employees but the petitioner was treated otherwise, and all his due were withheld illegally. Therefore, the petitioner moved to the Authority for his dues like, one month salary Rs,11215/-, notice pay Rs,4615/-, HBEWP Units Rs,34162/-, Benevolent Fund Rs,150000/-, leave encashment Rs,67290/-, and ex-gratia Rs,375000/-. The petitioner was summoned therein and he submitted detailed written reply and denied the claim of petitioner.
3. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act after hearing both the sides decided the claim of petitioner in the following terms:- "After perusal of the record and hearing arguments of the counsels of the parties, I am of the considered view that the applicant was employed as "SSG Guard" in October, 1996, in the year 2006, he was retrenched from employment vide Retrenchment Policy, 2006. He falls in the definition of workman as defined in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The arguments of both the parties were heard and recorded. It gleaned from the arguments of the parties that the application forwarded and submitted by the respondents learned counsel not to adjudicate the matter with reference of the establishment of special tribunal for the purpose West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 has no locus standi and amendment in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 dated 06/10/2001 and Payment of Wages Act, 1936 empowers the Authority to adjudicate the matter of wages regarding shops and establishments and it also includes Banks as well. It is also binding on all commercial establishments as well. The definitions under section 2(1) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance 1968 and under section 2(b) of Shops and Commercial Establishment Ordinance, 1969 are relevant to make clear the legal points of the case. In response to application dated 22/04/2015 filed by learned counsel for the respondent with the request to consider Supreme Court judgment 2014 PLC 203 is concerned, the preamble of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (Act No,X of 2012) clearly depicts that:- "An act to consolidate and rationalize the law relating to formation of trade unions, and improvement of nations between employers and workmen in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in trans provincial establishments and industry".
Therefore, the claim of applicant for one month salary Rs,11215, notice pay Rs,4615/-, HBEWP units Rs,34162, Benevolent Fund Rs,150000/-, leave encashment Rs,67290 and ex-gratia Rs,375000/- is accepted and claim regarding provident fund own contribution, bank's contribution Rs,121741/-, commuted value of pension Rs,115641, medical Rs,75000/-, Pay Package Rs,20000/- and special payment Rs,10000/- is refused because the applicant could not substantiate his claim through oral and documentary evidence.
Therefore an amount to Rs,642282/- is decreed in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. The respondent is directed to deposit the decree amount with the authority within 30 days for disbursement to the applicant. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The file be consigned to record after completion of necessity formalities."
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of learned Authority dated 15/08/2015 both the parties filed appeals before the learned Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore who after hearing both the sides and after fulfillment of other codal formalities decided the appeals in the following terms:- "11. As for issue of ex-gratia amount is concerned, the same was given worth Rs,3,75,000/-. To that extend learned counsel for bank referred a detailed judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported in 2016 PLC 61, case titled HBL v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and others, whereas his lordship Mr. Justice Shujaat Ali Khan has released to opine, about ex-gratia payment in detail. It was held by his lordship that ex-gratia amount does not fall within the definition of wales and he has also opined that in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011 SCM R 259, in Imtiaz Ali case, that ex-gratia amount was given to the employees who were party before Hon'ble Supreme Court in said judgment and the bank was ordered to pay Rs,8,20,050/- million as ex- gratia payment to the employees at the rate of 3,50,000/- per employee. It was held that said view of Hon'ble Supreme Court was only for said employees, who were before the Supreme Court. It was further held that no question of law was decided by apex court in said judgment and due to this no benefit was given in said judgment to all, effected by the retrenchment policy. So in said situation. I have to agree with the counsel for bank, about decretal amount of ex-gratia payment against bank by the authority is unlawful.
12. In the light of above discussion, the appeal of Rehmat Ali is dismissed, while appeal of HBL Bank is partially accepted qua ex-gratia amount, Rs,3,75,000/- and the remaining benefits decreed by the learned authority worth rupees Rs,2,67,282/- are maintained. File be consigned to the record room."
5. Hence this revision petition on the grounds mentioned therein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned Labour Court has not appreciated the facts of the case, and failed to award the amount claimed by the petitioner in his petition before the learned Authority, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to set aside to the extent of not granting the whole claim as prayed for. Further contended that the learned Labour Court in his decision dated 25/03/2017 clearly held that the petitioner is a regular workman and is entitled for benefits except notice pay for the month of March 2006, but astonishingly dismissed the claim of the petitioner and partially accepted the claim of the respondent and reduce the claim to Rs,267,282/- instead of awarding the rest of the claim refused by the Authority without any lawful justification. Further contended that the learned Labour Court while disallowing the ex-gratia has failed to consider that the ex-gratia amount claimed in the petition before the learned Authority is the amount granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a HR case reported as 2011 SCM R 259 (filed in the year 2009 and decided on 12/01/2010 much later than the claim filed by the petitioner in which employees were granted additional ex-gratia amount of Rs,350,000/- per employees), as the same is given to all retrenched employees, therefore, in present case non- allowing amount under the head of ex-gratia is a sheer discrimination. Further contended that it is worth mentioning that the other co-workers of the same category have also filed a petition for their claims on the same footing as claimed by the present petitioner and they were awarded their full claim and the said decision was maintained by the Labour Court, as a result thereof they were paid the amount claimed by the Authority vide cheques dated 09/01/2017 and prayed that revision petition be accepted and impugned judgment be set aside.
7. The respondent No,1 was summoned through registered post notice who did not turn up to defend this revision petition and on 17/07/2017, the respondent No,1 was proceeded ex-parte.
8. Ex-parte arguments heard and record perused.
9. According to the facts of the matter, Rehmat Ali, the petitioner filed a claim before the Authority with the contention that the petitioner served the respondent's Bank as SSG Guard since October, 1996 as workman. The labour laws are fully applicable upon his service structure. The respondent No,1 is a commercial establishment, as being explained under Company Ordinance, 1962. On 10/03/2006, a retrenchment policy was effected and 2343 regular non-clerical employees were retrenched and about 250 SSG Guards were effected by the said policy. Respondent's bank paid all the dues to the retrenched employees but the petitioner was treated otherwise, and all his due were withheld illegally. Therefore, the petitioner moved to the Authority for his dues like, one month salary Rs,11215/-, notice pay Rs,4615/-, HBEWP Units Rs,34162/-, Benevolent Fund Rs,150000/-, leave encashment Rs,67290/-, and ex-gratia Rs,375000/-. The petitioner was summoned therein and he submitted detailed written reply and denied the claim of petitioner.
10. The learned Authority under, the Payment of Wages Act after recording of oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties granted the following claim to the petitioner:- "Therefore, the claim of applicant for one month salary Rs,11215, notice pay Rs,4615/-, HBEWP units Rs,34162, Benevolent Fund Rs,150000/-, leave encashment Rs,67290 and ex-gratia Rs,375000/- is accepted and claim regarding provident fund own contribution, bank's contribution Rs,121741/-, commuted value of pension Rs,115641, medical Rs,75000/-, Pay Package Rs,20000/- and special payment Rs,10000/- is refused because the applicant could not substantiate his claim through oral and documentary evidence.
Therefore an amount to Rs,642282/- is decreed in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. The respondent is directed to deposit the decree amount with the authority within 30 days for disbursempt to the applicant. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The file be consigned to record after completion of necessity formalities."
11. While the learned Labour Court below accepted the appeal of respondent establishment and set aside the order of learned Authority to the extent of ex-gratia payment.
12. It is admitted from the respondent side that the petitioner was employed as SSG Commando who was retrenched from employment in March, 2006. At the time of retrenchment the petitioner was paid one month salary for the month of March and notice pay. This Tribunal observed that the petitioner did not challenge the retrenchment policy/order of the respondent establishment therefore it will be presumed that the order of retrenchment was accepted by the petitioner.
13. This Tribunal however do not agree with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of judgment reported as 2011 SCM R 259 the petitioner is entitle to be granted Rs,375000/- on account of ex-gratia payment because then the matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the applicants were granted ex-gratia payment as a result of a settlement which could not be considered as precedent in the instant case 'because here the petitioner accepted the retrenchment order and filed his claim on 09/03/2009 after almost 3 years of his retrenchment. Ex-gratia is Latin word which mean "out of good will" a sum of money paid when there is no obligation or liability to pay. Ex-gratia payment is made only as a result of a settlement which do not figure in this case. Therefore the petitioner is not entitle to claim ex-gratia payment.
14. The petitioner has already been awarded Rs,267282/-. The detail of which has been reproduced as under:- "Therefore, the claim of applicant for one month salary Rs,11215, notice pay Rs,4615/-, HBEWP units Rs,34162, Benevolent Fund Rs,150000/-, leave encashment Rs,67290 and ex-gratia Rs,375000/- is accepted and claim regarding provident fund own contribution, bank's contribution Rs,121741/-, commuted value of pension Rs,115641, medical Rs,75000/-, Pay Package Rs,20000/- and special payment Rs,10000/-. Total Rs,267282/-".
15. So for as the refused claim of petitioner is concerned. This Tribunal gone through the entire oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties and agree with the findings of learned Labour Court below that the petitioner could not substantiate his claim through convincing evidence hence it was rightly declined by the learned Labour Court.
16. In view of the above discussion the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, no interference is called for. Revision petition is dismissed.