ASIM HAFEEZ, J.----The petitioner has assailed Judgment dated 17.04.2018 by learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order of 05.03.2018 by Punjab Labour Court No. II, Lahore, was upheld, which had dismissed the grievance petition of the petitioner -- filed in terms of. Section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 -- on the premise that claim for the recovery of alleged payable gratuity amount can competently be filed in terms of the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
2. Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand, are that petitioner was employed as security guard with the respondent No.3, who tendered resig nation on 06.05.2017, made effective from 04.07.2017. Respondent No.3 accepted the resignation and intimated the petitioner to collect final dues, in terms of office order dated 08.05.2017, wherein it was also conveyed to the petitioner that same was not entitled to claim gratuity payment -- perhaps not admissible in terms of an earlier office order and terms and conditions appearing in the appointment letter . The petitioner conveyed grievance notice and thereafter approached Labour court by way of submitting grievance petition, wherein declaration was sought against the office order and claim of payment of gratuity was agitated. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner had not challenged office order dated 06.06.2007, issued before the appointment of the petitioner . Grievance petition was dismissed on 05.03.2018 being not maintainable. Petitioner unsuccessfully filed appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, I am convinced that in pith and substance, the claim of the petitioner relates to the recovery of alleged payable gratuity amount. The question is that whether such claim can be agitated in terms of section 33 of the Punjab Industrial. Relations Act, 2010, when the petitioner sought retirement voluntarily and same was allowed. Before dilating upon the questio n required consideration, it is expedient to reproduce subsection (1) of section 15 of Payment of W ages Act, 1936, which reads as follows:- Section 15(1) of Payment of W ages Act, 1936:-
15. Claims out of deductions from wages nr delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims .---The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensa tion or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate to be the authori ty to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, or non-payment of dues relating to provident fund or gratuity payable under any law or delay in the payment of wages, of persons employed or paid in that area.
[Emphasis supplied]
4. The petitioner is not a "Worker" or "Workman" in view of section 2(xxxi) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 ("Act, 2010")- in lieu of voluntary retirement sought and allowed -- and same cannot seek redressal by giving grievance notice and/or invoking jurisdiction of learned Labour Court in terms of section 33(4) of Act, 2010, for the recovery of alleged claim of gratuity , which claim can effectively be raised before the Authority in terms of section 15(1) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. No illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the forums below , while adjudicating upon the action, which had rightly observed / held that no jurisdiction vested in terms of Section 33 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 to entertain and adjudicate upon claim relating to the payment of gratuity amount.
5. In view of the above, this petition is without any merit and same is, therefore, dismissed .