1. Sind Road Transport Corporation (S. R. T. C. ) 'has filed this appeal under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act.
2. Admittedly respondent Shamsuddin was conductor in S. R. T. C. In May 1954 and he was retired from such service under an order P-1 dated 10-3-1980. His retirement was "consequent upon completion of 25 years of service", as per order copy P-1. Admittedly he had put in service for 26 years before being retired.
(i) wages front 10-3-i-980 to 30-9-1980 at rate of Rs. 703 p.m. ;
(ii) wages in lieu of unavailed leave for 105 days on full pay and for 401 days, on half pay at rate of Rs. 658 p.m. ; (i.e) gratuity to be calculated at rate of 20 days per year for 26 years; on basis of pay being Rs. 530 p.m. ;
(iv) Rs. 703 as notice pay. , The case was contested by the appellant who in the written statement refuted aforesaid claims.
3. Last pay of the respondent was said to be Rs 410 p m.
4. Learned Authority framed, issues on maintainability and on merits and under the order dated 8-6- 1981 granted claim in respect of items Nos. (ii), (i.e) and (iv) but not in respect of item No. (i). The order has ,,been challenged in present appeal by the S. R. T. C. And its officers.
5. I have heard Mr. R. M. Mushtaq counsel for the appellants and Mr. Wasiuliah counsel for the respondent.
6. The Authority held pay of the respondent to be Rs. 623 p. m. And I do not find reasons to take a different view in view of the photo copies of were register produced in the 'case: The term "wages" given in the Payment of Wages Act includes any additional remuneration paid to a worker. Section 2 (e) of Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 shows that wages mean remuneration for service and they include an Dearness Allowance or Cost of Living Allowance. The payment-sheets B Exhs. A and B show that the respondent was drawing Rs. 623 p. In. I hold accordingly.
7. Sick leave is provided by section 49-H of Factories Act but it does not provide if ---4uch leave can be .Accumulated if not availed of. Hence the respondent cannot be given any amount in respect of unavailed sick leave.
8. Mr. R. M. Mushtaq argued that the respondent was not entitled to get more than what he had demanded in para. 3 of his application under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act. If the law requires the respondent: to be paid an amount more than that demanded by him 'then we have; to follow the law. If the law allows more than the amount claimed then the amount payable under the law will have to be paid to the respondent notwithstanding claim for lesser amount.
9. Consequently I maintain order of the Authority in respect of notice pay, and modify order of the Authority in respect of gratuity amount and m respect of unavailed annual leave. The respondent is entitled to get Rs. 10,798 as gratuity on the basis of his pay being Rs. 723 p. m. He is also allowed an amount of Rs. 618 in lieu of unavailed leave. Claim of the respondent beyond this appears unwarranted by law and is therefore, disallowed and to that extent this appeal is accepted.