This appeal calls in question the decision dated 25-1-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore
2. The appellant claims bonus, over-time wages, additional allowance and wages in lieu of 52 days earned leave. The learned lower Court granted the relief of payment of wages for eight days' earned leave. Even this could not be allowed. Payment in lieu of earned leave is allowed if services have been terminated. The appellant is admittedly in service, so cannot claim wages in lieu of earned leave. He may obtain leave if any is to his credit. The appellant says that his leave can accumulate up to four months, but he has not been able to cite any rule to this effect. Of course if there is any rule, he may take benefit of it, but so far as factual position is concerned, he has not been able to refer to any evidence to show that beyond eight days he has any earned leave to his credit. So the finding of the learned lower Court is correct.
3. So far as bonus is concerned, it was disallowed by the respondent on the ground that it had to pay huge interest on account of purchasing fertili--zer on credit. The appellant says that interest has not yet been paid but is to be paid. Since he admits the liability of the respondent to pay interest. Obviously it will cause loss to the respondent. Needless to say bonus is allowed only when the industry has gamed profit, except customery bonus for which there is no condition of profit. But the appellant does not claim any customery bonus.
4. For additional allowance the appellant says that he was made to act as officer. He has in arguments made reference to Exhs. P-1 to P-2. Exh. P-1 shows that the appellant was asked to work for the reconciliation of accounts/audits/and super audit. Obviously reconciliation is a clerical work. Auditing and super auditing, no doubt, can be done by the auditors and not clerks, but the appellant was not deputed to audit or super audit any accounts. I have carefully gone through Exh.
P-2 also. The duties given in it are merely clerical. As no duties of an officer were taken from the appellant. He could not claim any allowance. The claim in this respect was, therefore, rightly disallowed.
5. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine with the observation that if rules allow any accumulation of leave, the appellant will be at liberty to apply for it if he is in need of leave, but he cannot claim wages in lieu of leave as he is in service.