' Mst. Shamim Akhtar had filed an application before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act/Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Hyderabad, purported to be under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, stating inter alia therein that her husband Maqbool Ahmed was employed with the appellant organization since 9-2-1967. However, on 2-2-1984 he died his natural death and at the time of his death he was drawing monthly basic pay of Rs,870. According to the applicant lady, the legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to Rs,12,635 towards gratuity and Rs,15,000 towards Group Life Insurance and since the said amount was not paid by the appellant, she prayed for a direction vide her above application moved on 13-8-1984.
2. One Mst. Noor Jehan widow of Maqbool Ahmed son of Lal Khan also moved a similar Application No, 50 of 1984 stating that her husband was in the employment of appellant since 14-2-1965 and he died on 1-2-1983. He was drawing basic monthly wages at the rate of Rs,662. An amount of Rs,13,330 was, therefore claimed towards gratuity while Rs,15,000 were demanded as group life insurance, amount.
3. The third case of similar nature was filed by one Nawab Ali vide Application No, 95 of 1983. In this case Nawab Ali was said to have been employed in 1953 and he was retired on 30-4-1983 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was drawing Rs,1,123 at the time of his retirement and so he claimed Rs,22,460 towards gratuity.
4. In all the three cases in the reply statements the status of the mployees was assailed and the appellant pleaded that in fact they were Government Servants and so were not to be governed by the Labour Laws. Since they were not covered by the Labour Laws they were not entitled to any amount. However, factual position was nearly admitted in the reply statement.
5. It appears that in all the three cases only Nawab Ali was cross-examined on behalf of the respondents and no evidence was led on behalf of the appellant. It further appears that these matters were only contested on legal issues, mainly on the ground of jurisdiction. The learned Authority however allowed all these three applications vide his orders dated 8-4-1985 and these orders have now been assailed in above three appeals. Since a common point is involved in all these cases, I would like to dispose of these appeals with this common order.
6. I have heard Mr. M. Ibrahim Soomro, Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. Muhammad Bashir Awan, counsel for all the respondents. Mr. Soomro in fact conceded to the jurisdiction of the learned Authority in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court passed in Petitions No, S- 61 to 67 of 1984, decided on 4-12-1984. However, without showing any reasons whatsoever he half- heartedly submitted that since the employees in all these cases became Civil Servants on their regularization, they cannot be permitted benefits under Labour Laws. This submission is therefore, contrary to what has been decided on the petitions referred to above. Mr. Bashir Awan submits that since the Labour Laws are applicable to the appellant establishment and since no evidence was led by the appellant before the Lower Court and since the factual position is not legally disputed, the impugned order should not be disturbed.
7. When these matters were fixed for orders before me, Mr. Ali Muhammad Shaikh, Agricultural Engineer, Thatta appeared before me and submitted apparent written arguments by Mr. Ibrahim Soomro. According to the written arguments, Nawab Ali would be entitled to only Rs,13,240 instead of Rs,22,460. The submission of the appellant is that the respondent was regularised on 1-7-1982 and so his gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of Rs,622 plus Rs,40 and only from 1953 to 30-6- 1982. In the case of Shamim Akhtar the respondent was considered be entitled for Rs,4,980 on the principle referred to above. Applicant st. Noor Jehan has however been considered entitled to Rs,7,506.67 owards gratuity and Rs,1,000 towards insurance. Copy of these arguments were given to the other side. Mr. Bashir also submitted his written reply and re-asserted that the claim as allowed by the learned Lower Court is in accordance with law and cannot be questioned.
8. Before I examine the merits of these cases I would point out here that the directed amounts were to be deposited by 7-5-1985 whereas the amounts were deposited on 1-6-1985. Mr. Bashir submitted that all these appeals are time-barred as the appeals were not accompanied by deposit certificates nor the amount was deposited within the stipulated time. The contention of the other side is that the amount was deposited with the Bank and Bank Drafts obtained against the said amounts were handed over to the learned Authority on 7-5-1985. Accordingly, the appeals would be competent. The record shows that the drafts submitted by the appellants were not encashed because the same were not properly and legally signed. The law provides that before coming in appeal the aggrieved employer must not only deposit the amount within 30 days of the direction but it should also submit the deposit certificate alongwith the memo. Of appeal. The deposit means the amount in question and not any invalid paper. In the instant cases, admittedly the amount was not received by the learned lower Court and so the appeals are liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
9. Even on merits, I do not find any substance in these appeals. As pointed out above, _the appellant no where disputed the factual position of the respondents nor it tendered any evidence in rebuttal. Accordingly, the learned Authority decided these matters only on the legal point as to jurisdiction. In the petitions referred to above, the submissions of Mr. Soomro, who had also appeared in those petitions on behalf of employer, had been repelled and the Labour Laws were held to be applicable to all such Government Employees where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline were not framed. The same position is of the appellants organization and so the Labour Laws are fully applicable to its workers. Besides this, as per Circular No, SO-VIII-Reg (S&GAD)
1-321/74, dated 24-9-1983, issued by S&GAD, Government of Sind, all the persons on the work- charge establishment shall continue to be workmen and would be regulated by the provisions of I.R.O.1969 even after their being brought on regular establishment. In view of this, the objection as to the jurisdiction of the Lower Court has no force.
10. As per the judgment in the above petitions, the amount of gratuity shall be calculated on the length of service and not the factum whether he was a confirmed employee or otherwise. Moreover the average of monthly wages drawn on the last day of service of employee shall be made the basis for computing the amount of gratuity. Accordingly, the amount as awarded by the learned Authority is fully justified and cannot be questioned herein.
11. The insurance amount has also rightly been awarded because the claim of the heirs of the deceased was brought under section 10-B of S.O. Ordinance, and, according to this provision, the amount is to be calculated in accordance with the schedule attached to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Besides this, I also find that the amount awarded towards insurance would be deemed to be an order under section 10-B of S.O. Ordinance and so as has been held in Appeal No, WCK-40/75, decided on 23-7-1975 and 1975 PLC 277, no appeal would be competent B in regard to the directions made under section 10-B of Standing Orders Ordinance.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any substance in these appeals and so these are dismissed. The amounts deposited by the appellants be paid to the respondents.