JUSTICE (R) CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN --- This revision petition has been directed against the impugned order dated 13.9.2017 passed by learned Punjab Labour Court No, IV, Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the case has per contents of revision petition are that the deceased Muhammad Bakhsh filed a claim under Section 15 of payment of Wages Act. 1936 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs, 503,108.15. The petitioner appeared before the learned Authority in the proceedings of the case and filed written statement on 22.12.2010 and the case was fixed for framing of issues and. recording of evidence for 12.01.2011. As per order dated 2.3.2011, the case was called, the petitioner appeared before the learned Authority, but respondent, Muhammad Bakhsh, failed to appear 'in the case and his case was dismissed for non-prosecution/by the learned Authority, vide order dated 2.3.2011. The petitioner never received any notice in the case however 'it had come to know that the learned Authority while accepting the petition, passed ex parte decree to the tune - of Rs, 503,108.15 vide order dated 27.11.2012 in the following terms:-- "I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have minutely gone through the relevant pension rules. The petitioners have not challenged these rules.
Rather they have claimed increase in pension which was from time to time granted by the Government has been withheld in the case of the petitioners without any justification which is restored. The Bank Authority/representative has not rebutted petitioner's claim on this point. I, therefore, find the claim of the petitioners are genuine one. Therefore, the petitioners being legal heirs of the deceased employee of UBL, are entitled for this outstanding amount of Rs, 5,03,108.15 which is hereby decreed in their favour against the Zonal Head United Bank Limited Jhang. The Bank Authority is directed to pay this amount to the petitioners."
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of learned Authority the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Punjab. Labour Court No, IV, Faisalabad who after hearing both the sides as well as gone through the written arguments of the parties dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in the following terms:-- "The impugned order was passed by the Authority on 27.11.2012. The appellant applied for certified copy of the order dated 27.11.2012 on 26.12.2012 which was prepared and received on 26.12.2012. The appellant deposited decretal amount on 14.1.2013 certified annexed. The appellant filed this appeal on 16.1.2013. According to Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the appeal may be filed against the order of the Authority within thirty days but the appellant filed this appeal on 16.1.2013 after elapse of 19 days. The appellant alongwith the memorandum of appeal filed an application for condonation of delay but the grounds taken by the appellant in the application for condonation of delay are not sound.
The nutshell of the above discussion, the application for condonation of delay has no force which is hereby dismissed and resultantly, the appeal in hand is also hereby dismissed being time-barred.
The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jhang is directed to disburse the decretal amount to the respondents."
4. Hence this revision petition on the grounds mentioned therein.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the learned Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of pension. Pension is not part of the wages and there was no dispute of delayed or deducted wages. Pension is not the subject of labour laws. Hence, the learned Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the claim of the respondent, Muhammad Bakhsh. Further contended that the learned Authority and the learned Labour Court below did not consider and differentiate, the judgment reported as 1987 PLC 633, in which it has been held that jurisdiction conferred by Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 on Authority was limited in nature which could not be extended and similarly Section-15 did not empower the Authority to determine whether pay of workers had been properly fixed by employer in accordance with pay scale applicable to them. The learned Authority could not grant wages which actually were due but could not enter into an enquiry to determine as to what the wages. The learned Authority exercised the power which was not entrusted to it by law. Hence, the basic order dated 27.11.2012 is illegal. void and without lawful authority and the same is liable to be set aside. Further contended that the pension is not a TARKA and cannot be claimed by legal heirs PLD 2015 Sindh 360 and 2017 PLC-CS 625 but can only be claimed by dependant, as contemplated in Pension Rules. It is settled principle that Special Law competent and was not maintainable and prayed that revision petition be accepted as prayed.
6. Conversely, the respondents were served through TCS who did not turn up to defend this revision petition. Therefore, the respondents are proceeded parte.
7. Ex parte arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner heard and available record perused.
8. According to the facts of the case are the deceased Muhammad Bakhsh filed a claim Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs, 503,108.15. The petitioner appeared before the learned Authority in the proceedings of the case and filed written statement on 22.12.2010 and the case was fixed for framing of issues and recording of evidence for 12.01.2011: As per order dated 2.3.2011, the case was called,. the petitioner appeared before the learned Authority but respondent, Muhammad Bakhsh, failed to appear "in the case and his case was dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned' Authority, vide order dated 2.3.2011, The petitioner never received any notice in the case, however, it had come to know that the learned Authority while accepting the petition, passed ex parte decree to the tune of Rs, 503,108.15 vide order dated 27.11.2012.
9. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the matter of pension is not part of the wages and there was no dispute of delay and deduction of the wages. It was further argued that pension is not a subject of labour law, therefore, the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the claim of the respondents. This fact of the matter was also ignored by the learned Labour Court below while deciding the appeal. Therefore, revision petition be accepted and the impugned orders/judgments be set aside.
10. This Tribunal gone through the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1991 SCMR 1041 in which the word pension has been defined. According to the interpretation the pension has been defined as under:-- "Pensions are periodic payments, usually for the natural life of a person who retires because of age or disability. Sometimes the term refers: to periodic payments to wives, widows or children of a primary or deceased person or pensioner: occasionally, a pension will be conveyed solely as an honour for conspicuous service or valour. Pensions are provided by Government in three guises (1) as compensation or recompense to war veterans and families for old age or for disability or death, usually from service causes; (2) as disability or old age retirement benefits for civilian employees of government; (3) as social security payments for the aged, disabled or deceased citizenry based on past employment history of subject to current evidence of need. Pensions are also provided by many non-governmental employers as a pews of protecting workers retiring for age or disability and for relieving the payroll of superannuated personnel. They are sometimes provided by union- management welfare funds, associations or trusteeships. Only rarely do employees in groups. associations or unions undertake their own pension programme without employer or Government assistance."
11. It has been further elaborated:--- "A pension is a periodical allowance of money granted by the Government in consideration or recognition of meritorious past services, or of loss or injury sustained in the public service. A pension is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants, and it presupposes the continued life of the recipient.
The right to a pension depends upon statutory provisions and therefore, the existence of such right in particular instances is determinable primarily from the terms of the statute under which the right or privilege is granted. The right to a pension may be made to depend upon such conditions as the grantor may see fit to prescribe. Thus, it has been held that it may be provided, in a general Pension Act, that any person who accepts the benefits thereof shall forfeit his right to a special pension previously granted."
It has been held that right to a pension mainly depend upon statutory provisions.
12. In clause (vi) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 the word wages has been defined as under:-- "wages" means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behavior of the person employed or otherwise, to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment, but does not include:---
(a) The value of any house accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity, or of any service excluded by general or special order of the Provincial Government.
(b)Any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund;
(c) Any travelling allowance or the value of travelling concession;
(d) Any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him, by the nature of his employment, or
(e) Any gratuity payable on discharge."
13. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as 1991 SCMR 1041 has held that a right of pension depends upon statutory provisions, therefore, the existence of such right in particular instances is determinable primarily from the terms of the status under which the right or privilege is granted.
14. In the definition of wages in Clause (b) the contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund was expressly excluded from the definition of wages or provident fund but latter on Clause (b) of Section 2 was excluded from the definition of wages vide Payment of Wages (Amendment) Act (VII) of 2014 and Clause (b) was omitted.
15. After the above amendment the pension has been included in the definition of wages therefore, the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jhang rightly exercised the jurisdiction and accepted the claim of respondents. The law relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable and not applicable in the instant case.
16. In view of the above discussion this revision petition is dismissed being without merit.