1. ' This appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is directed against the order, dated 13th January, 1983 passed by the learned Authority at Hyderabad in application No, 84/82 filed by the respondents, whereby the claim of the respondents regarding House Ken! Allowance has been allowed with the directions that the appellant-department should deposit the claim amount as awarded by the Authority.
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent workers are employed under the appellant on work-charged establishment for the period of their claim i. e. Upto 30th June, 1982, and are getting their wages under the scheme of National Scales of Pay since 1972 and by virtue of Notification, dated 21st February, 1978. It is further mentioned in the application that the respondent-workers after having completed 3-years of service, have become entitled for the fringe benefits attached to the National Pay Scales in the nature of House Rent Allowance. It is further alleged by the respondents that despite so many efforts the appellant-department has not paid them the same. Therefore the respondents filed their claim before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act at Hyderabad and sought the direction for payment against the appellants.
3. ' The above application of the respondent was contested by the appellant on only legal issues because the facts pleaded in the application were not refuted. The learned Authority after hearing the arguments of the Advocates of the parties decided that the respondents were entitled to the relief claimed by them and in the result allowed their application and hence this appeal.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the R&P also. Mr. M. Bashir Awan learned Advocate of respondents filed written arguments also which I have gone through.
5. ' Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the learned lower Court calls for any interference or not ?
6. ' My finding thereon is in the negative for the following reasons :- REASONS ' The learned Advocate of the appellants has contended that the respondents were civil servants and as such the learned lower Court or this Court has no jurisdiction. The learned Advocate of the respondents on the other hand held that the respondents were admittedly borne on work-charged establishment and they have claimed the wages in the nature of House Rent Allowance which comes within the definition of "Wages" and as such the lower Court as well as this Court has definitely jurisdiction. He referred to a case-law reported in 1980 PLC 1123. He further mainatined that the respondents are not civil servants and they are specifically excluded from the definition of civil servants. The learned Advocate of the appellants could not controvert the above contentions of the learned Advocate of the respondents. I also feel that the respondents cannot be termed as civil servants because they are borne on work-charged establishment and as such the lower Court as well as this Court is quit competent to decide the cases of the respondents. According to me the learned lower Court has rightly held that the application of the respondent was maintainable and the lower Court has jurisdiction in the matter. I find no fault with the above finding of the learned lower Court.
7. ' The learned Advocate of the appellants during the course of arguments tried to produce a letter, dated 8th August, 1978 without any application under Order XLI, rule 27, C. P. C. And this document was also not produced in the lower Court. He further contended that on the basis of above letter the earlier Notification of 21st February, 1978, on the basis of which the respondent-workers claimed the relief, was withdrawn and in support of his argument he acited PLD 1980 Pesh. 128 and. PLD 1969 SC 407.
8. ' The learned Advocate of the respondents rebutted his above contention that the authorities cited by the learned Advocate for the appellants are not applicable with the facts of the present case. He further maintained that the very letter, dated 8th August, 1978 which is sought to be produced clearly shows that the Notification, dated 21 st February, 1978 was acted upon and duly implemented. The learned Advocate of the respondents further maintained that the production of the document at appellate stage cannot be allowed and looked into and referred to a latest case law reported in 1983 SCMR 367, wherein it is held "Petitioner wants interference with order of the High Court on the basis of material not produced before High Court... .....Petition dismissed in the circumstances of the case". He also quoted a case-law reported in PLD 1976 Kar. 811, wherein it is held "Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of lower Court".
9. ' I quite agree with the contention and the case-law cited by the learned Advocate of the respondents that the Notification, dated 8th August, 1978 cannot be looked into at this stage.
10. Moreso when the Notification, dated 21st February, 1978 has been acted upon and duly implemented. The learned Advocate of the appellants lastly contended that the House Rent Allowance is excluded from the definition of wages to which the Advocate of the respondents replied that the House Rent Allowance/Conveyance Allowance is included in the definition of wages and he cited in support of his argument, the following case C law ; (1) 1980 PLC 90, (2) 1981 PLC 800, (3) 1983 PLC 102. I have gone through the above-quoted rulings and find that they support the view of the learned Advocate of the respondents that the respondents are entitled to a relief claimed by them. The learned Advocate of the respondents further added that the admitted position is that the respondents are getting their wages in the National Scale of Pay and according to rule 13 of the above said rules, and even otherwise, according to him, the respondents are etitled to the allowance mentioned in the rules. It would be proper to reproduce rule 13 which reads as under :- "The Revised National Scales of Pay and Allowances mentioned above shall apply to all Civil Employees of the Sind Government paid directly from the civil estimates who are governed by the Scheme of National Scales of Pay."
11. ' The learned Advocate of the respondents further contended that the above rules were duly approved and assented by the Governor of Sind and admittedly made applicable in the case of respondents, and therefore the benefits available under the Rule, to the workers, cannot be taken away by any Officer of the Department, and in support of his arguments he cited the case-law reported in PLD 1983 Lah. 246, and relevant at page 250, and also 1980 PLC 361, wherein it was held that the : "Decision by the Government cannot be varied or modified by an Officer in one of Government Departments".
12. ' The learned Advocate of the appellants did not make any argument with regard to the points of locus standi of the respondents and misjoinder of necessary party although these points were mentioned in the memo. Of appeal. Therefore these points need not be dismissed. The learned Advocate of the respondents lastly referred to a decision of this Court in Appeal No, 25/82 decided on 21st December, 1982. Government of Sind v. Azeem Bux and others which reads as under.
13. "Even on merits there is hardly any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Authority has rightly held that the respondents are not covered by the definition of Civil Servants hence the Authority had jurisdiction and the application was maintainable. In view of Government of Sind Finance Department Memo., dated 13th May, 1977, the Authority rightly held that the respondents were entitled to House Rent Allowance as claimed by them".
14. I have gone through the contents of the impugned order and I find that its findings are based on cogent reasons. I find no fault with them to interfere with them. The same are, therefore, hereby maintained and in the result the appeal of the appellants is hereby dismissed.