' The present appeal is directed against the order, dated 28th August, 1982 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Islamabad. The appeal was entertained under the impression that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. As a matter of fact since Islamabad is out of the Punjab and this Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of the order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation having jurisdiction within the precincts of Punjab this Tribunal has no jurisdiction vide President's Order No, XVIII of 1980 the administrative control of the Government of the Punjab over Islamabad was taken over by the President by repealing Order No, XII of 1970. The memorandum of appeal is therefore, returned to the learned counsel for the appellant for want of jurisdiction.
Appeal returned. {{BLUR PAGE}} 1984 PLC 458 bni; ((!) (8) A-SA} tidi 1011) zi ,ziDroti (b) (F.)
5111 to filiwitr, rIn BeifobtriNAAhaiedili'mthfori4Atithdnityill Louf.Sis aartlaui ,friavutt oi; riariz to iii4cf ,ItAgEEDubbig..,(IimED noi8eiunno'..) gno/w cbelo ilLr) '0.)4fliVz oa !Cannibal -JaYelisus.; 0' 1(1 itzdi nuir4,2. e(loilltuCt etioo' y1110 .40AptliAwil dace dtviti iliw VOI aXii..W 4111:4) frativai to rd wit It A-6; uolf.P.:.?.
Tsbnu case No, 44 of I-9162, decided on 22nd February, 1984. .Ba)utiinit
(a) .f)II:911931tPfdiNNe th Ack(EK=96 = 030n I .6.3riqr; 73111 ,ti .u,v,A S. 15-Application claiming deducted wages-Limitation-Appli.Avv4ilit&ritilillausly pursuing his claim with employer-Claim a recur.! - ring cause of action--Authority, in circumstances, entertaining application and objection as to limitation repelled. [p. 4591A .4 1971 PLC 321 rel: 4
(b) Payment of W4Pitel 161)11A(1/` '""'ld 11 --- S. 1'5'-'lle'dtrefetri f'cif--WAP-6A "eliplOyee a Line Superintendent promoted and aetuaby'performing duties of S.D.O.Pay as S. D.
0. Not allWed on 'plea, .That ',*not formally promoted-Non-payment of pay of S. D., 0. In circumstances, held, amounted to illegal deduction of wages- Application claiming same allowed by Authority with fobiriffites' compensation. [p. 4601B 1983 SC M118991;4982 PLC (C. S.) 547 and 198/IPL C (C. 6'..) 668 rel. tVoc.".1 zooititzt51 M. Braltir Alva4444q/Appliatia r311( to 2--- p-45-11,rciJsig o) bl)iroLjn.migihadvt71nn arA!Pm.).(1 MAO ARP030W to n(1ii;a13 By this eirtier,1144 clkitige'Or' 1.6684' iitik1W."8cttiftiVII of Payment of Wages Act, filed by the applicant above-named, wherein he claimed the refund of Rs, 34,185 alleged to have been illegally deducted by the opponent, and prayed for compensation thereon. He also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application. The opponent denied the liabilities by filing the written statement. ,jew, The following issufert,settled , la:Jeslq .Ciois (1) Whelher theittkilicatitiWis maintainablelfiflativ ? Id tion6c1 S8Qi to it .;(2) Whether the e app want pertormed the 4140.5'; of 0,49fhtitte period from 4th 'March, 1966 to 30th Novernb6r, 19418ridgrits promoted as such from that date ? g:q
(3) Whether the applicant is entitled for the salary of $. Ifcor alrti the period he so worked as S. D.
0. -`? b,:o
(4) Jo ati...ILS r d ja5filfrnV OD Relief intrt ;,17 12 .11;= .,.rH!f;f,q17 o I have gone through the record and proceedings 'and also heard the arguments of both the learned counsel. My findings on the issues art as ;under {{BLUR PAGE}} Issue No, 1-The applicant in para. No, 4 of his affidavit in evidence, stated his duties and nature of work, which he was performing during ;meta (,, 10-1CiDifiolt)V0iTto 1011(i0D {{BLUR PAGE}} SAYEEDIRibIN;Alit4fljEPM., AWAPDA 49)4 (Ali Ahmed Panhwar, Authority) -MO FiliW tlf!07) ?i sv,c1 b,,wonr: .3ityintt Wiwi?. Twit 'to rriirh the claim period, and the opponent has not disputed and questionewil x4li, is,issertions. Moreover, at the relevant, time the appli9nt, was pct c19'lared tO te" nAturi ;Yrt",(,14Ippv the applicant was a workman and Workmen's Compensation Act, and the esta dr the Ppponent engaged in generating and distribution otelpArierity, is a 1,31orrfactory within the meaning of Factories 0 I lo Nog o fiv 15,i With regard to the point of limitationtt . Th NtA ,ea qounsel for the applicant made the submissio* t Vitt0,1y applicant ,..)11, was persuing his claim all along set ..Tce,. Per} pcill.Pc.Dly he I was in service even in December, 197 Annexure and' 4iis being a (, 4 recurring cause of action, the applicationv.Having been filedttin. May, it 1982, is within time.
However, Mr.t'.Awan cited 1911,,,y L Cj 321, wherein it has been held thatill........................................................... "Time 4.1?p,nt in negotiation between employer and wot egard t clApute... ho inulteld sufficient cause for extending tipeiAvg) e ptes4 Ectperiod loth 4rid authority exercised discretion accpc= ngAo such delayed application". 3na;1i1qqp As the ground taken for condonation of delay in filing the application, isk411tit&cii4,4 b'iidone the delay if any. I hold that the application-A maintainable. Issue No, 2.-Apart from the documents filed by the applicant showing that the applicant has worked 14881 D.
0., the defence witness Mr. Usman, DputylpplirectK(140.4p.p,6, has admitted in his cross- examination that he applicant has actuaTlY 'worked as S. D.
0. For the peri'STfronA 4th'March, 1966 to 5th Jund;1978.
I would, therefofe, hold that the applicant perfornind - the duties of S. D.
0., for the claim period.
"Issue No, 3.-Mtu:- Bashir Awan, contended that since it has been established dp-e this Court, that the applicant has worked as S, D.
0. )1meharge of Sub-Division, and which post is admittedly, higher pdst than that of Line Sillfefiiitetidentqta&-I, the applicatie is legally entitled for the salary of a post i. e. Sf"D.'0 on which he has actually worked.
' In support of his contention Mr. Awan cited 1983 PLC (C. SO 103, 4983 SCMR 883, 1982 PLC (C. S.)
547, 1982 PLC (C. S.) 668 and contended that in air these authorities it Was held by the superior Courts that "an employee shall not be denied pay of the post in which required to work, even though not formally promoted to the grade or post".
Mr. Fazlani, the learned Advocate for the ,opponent, took the stand that since applicant was not promoted formally 134 pn 14% basis as such he is not entitled for the salary of that plzafiffitil promoted on regular basis. ,ufint'oriSc -;{{BLUR PAGE}} ' In view of the law laid down in the above authorities which I have gone through, the plea of the learned counsel has no force and is not acceptable. Mr. Awan also referred me to case, being Application No, 51 of 1982 titled All Muhammad v. W APDA, decided by the Court, on 7th May, 1983, wherein claim of the similar nature was allowed by this Court with compensation.
' I have come to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled for the full salary of the S. D.
0. Post, on which he has actually worked and I answer the issue accordingly.
Issue No, 4.-In view of the above discussion I have come to the conclusion that although the applicant, after having been promoted from the post of Line Superintendent Grade-I. To that of S. D.
0. Has actually worked as full-fledged S. D.
0., for the claim period, yet he has not been paid his full entitlement despite his repeated representations, and continued to have been paid the less amount as worked out in the claim- sheet. This clearly amounts to illegal deductions of the wages and the applicant is entitled for the refund of Rs, 34,185 and for the reasons that the applicant has been deprived of his legal right for years together, and also put into litigation for no fault at his part, I award four times compensation on the above illegal deductions, and direct the opponent to deposit a total amount of Rs, 1,70,925 in the Court within 30 days for payment to the applicant. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.