' The appeal captioned above . Arises from the decision, dated 30-11-1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondents was accepted.
2. The grievance of the respondents is that assessed rent is not charged but is charged at the rate of 5% of the pay. The appellant includes 55% running allowance in the wages. The learned lower Court has held that the said allowance is not part of wages. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that he- has no objection regarding inclusion of 55% running allowance in the wages for the calculation of rent. His line of argument is that only the General Manager is competent to make rules and as letter Exh. P.1 was not issued by him, rent at 5% of wages cannot be recovered and only assessed rent according to pay rolls is chargeable. Exh. P.1 letter has differentiated two categories of employees. From the ones to whom Payment of Wages Act applies, rent is charged according to the assessed rent and from others at 5% of the wages. This rule has been made after the Supreme Court's ruling reported in 1975 L L C 4 (SC) came in the field. While determining whether the Payment of Wages Act applies or not, the appellant includes 55% running allowance in the wages and by doing so if wages exceed Rs,1,000 they charge rent at 5% as Payment of Wages Act applies only to those whose wages are Rs,1,000 or more. So, real dispute is this also if running allowance can be included in the wages and the learned counsel wrongly says that there is no dispute about the inclusion of such an allowance in wages. If the wages of the respondents exceed Rs,1,000 even without adding to them 55% running allowance, deduction of rent at 5% can be made and Payment of Wages Act not being applicable to them, they cannot have any grievance.
3. This is true that rule making authority is the General Manager but he acts as a delegatee of the Railway Board as all the powers vest in the Board. Letter Exh. P.1 being of the Railway Board has binding force and the objection that it was not issued by the General Manager has no force. Since the wages of the respondents exceed Rs,1,000 P.M. They are not entitled to pay assessed rent only according to rent rates but they are liable to pay rent at 5% according to Exh. P.1. For recovering rent at 5% F.R.45-A (iv) (b) (i) is clear.
4. So far as the question of inclusion of 55% running allowance in the wages is concerned, para. 1916 Chapter XIX of Pakistan Government Railway Code for Engineering Department is relevant. The term 'emoluments' has been defined in it to include 55% running allowance. A Para. 1916 supra deals with the rent of Railway buildings and quarters. So, while assessing the rent at 5%, 55% running allowance is to be included in the wages.
5. It has been argued that the appeal of the appellant is time-barred from the date of preparation of copy of the impugned judgment of the learned lower Court. The Reader of the learned lower Court who receives applications for copies and issues the copies has, no doubt, said that the dates for the collection of copies are told to the litigants concerned but this evidence stands controverted by the evidence of the other witnesses examined by the appellant. Even the Reader admits that the dates fixed for the supply of copies are neither entered on the applications for copies nor in the relevant register. In the absence of such an entry, it is not believe able that the dates for the collection of copies are conveyed to the persons applying for the copies. So, the date of delivery is the material date and excluding the period from the date of the application for copies and the date of delivery, the appeal is within time. The objection of limitation is thus overruled.
6. As a result of what has been said above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondents is dismissed.