1. ' By the order, I will dispose of the application under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of the Wages Act, filed by the applicants named in the schedule hereinto.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as worker under the opponent abovenamed. The opponent organisation has sanctioned bonus equal to one month's wages in recognition of the dedicated efforts in completing the Hub Dam Project before scheduled time. As the opponent has not paid the bonus to the applicants, for which they are allegedly otherwise entitled they have therefore filed the present application, seeking directions for payment of the same to them.
3. ' The opponent in the written reply denied the entitlement of the applicants. The following issues arose out of the pleadings :-
(1) Whether the applicants are working in any Factory or Industrial Unit by the Opponent as such whether the application is maintainable in law ?
(2) Whether tie applicants are on deputation from WAPDA if so, what is the effect ?
(3) Whether the applicants are entitled for the claim as filed or any part thereof ?
(4) What should the order be ?
4. ' The parties adduced the evidence and filed documents. The learned Counsel of the parties filed written arguments. I have perused the proceedings and arguments. My findings on each of the issues with reasons therefor are as under :- Issue No, 1 : ' The applicants side has filed a certificate which is Exh. A/1, issued, by the Inspector of Factories Hyderabad, certifying that the M. C. P. Workshop is a registered Factory under the Factories Act and made the submissions that it is conclusive proof that the opponent workshop is a Factory and according to section 2(ii)(h) of the Payment of Wages Act, it is an Industrial Establishment.
5. ' It was further contended that it is clear from the language of section 1(4) of the Payment of Wages Act, that it applies to "persons" and it is not necessary that the claimant should be a workman. For the proposition of law, authority as reported in 1983 PLC 822 is sufficient to ' support the contention of the applicants.
6. ' The opponent side has taken the stand that only repair work of heavy machinery is carried out in the workshop, which does not mean "Manufacturing process" to treat the M. C. P. Workshop as Factory.
7. ' To repel the contention of the opponent side, reproducing of definition of "Manufacturing process" as given in section 2(g) of Factories Act, will be sufficient :-
(g) "Manufacturing process" means any process :-
(i) for making, altering, repairing ornamenting, finishing or packing or otherwise treating any article or substance with a view to its use.
8. The applicants have filed application for recovery of "Bonus" which has been made part of the "Wages" as defined in section 2(vi) of Payment of Wages Act.
9. ' In view of the above discussion I answer the issue in affirmative. Issue No, 2 : ' The fact that the applicants are on deputation from M. P.
0. WAPDA to the M. C. P. (the opponent organisation) from 1st September, 1974 is not disputed. It is also admitted position that nothing is being claimed from M. P.
0. WAPDA. It is also admitted position on record, that notification under which the applicants have based their claim, has also been issued by the M. C. P. And not by M. P.
0. WAPDA. Therefore the mere fact that the applicants are on deputation from M. P.
0. WAPDA, has no bearing- and adverse affect on their relief particularly being claimed from M. C. P.
10. I, therefore, hold that the claim of the applicants is not affected for the reasons that they are on deputation.
11. Issue No, 3 : ' Exh. "A" is letter dated 29th May, 1979 issued by the opponent Organisation whereby Bonus equal to one month's wages was sanctioned to the workers of Hub Dam Project for completing the project before scheduled time.
12. ' Exh. "B" is a letter dated 17th July, 1979 issued in continuation whereby payment of aforesaid "Bonus" was also sanctioned for the workers working in M. C. P. Workshop at Jamshoro.
13. ' Exh. "C" is an office order issued on 17th February, 1981, whereby aforesaid Bonus was sanctioned to the workers who were transferred to Iraq.
14. ' Exh. "D" is a letter dated 18th June, 1979 filed by the opponent shows that there must be at least six months service period in M. C. P. Hub Dam, during closure period. This condition is restricted in Hub Dam Project, and not in M. C. P. Workshop, where the applicants. Are working.
15. ' The witness of the opponent has admitted in cross-examination that subsequently this "Bonus" has also been paid to workers who were working in Workshop. He also admitted that the workshop, warehouse, equipment office and security staff are under the control of Manager Workshop and Warehouse.
16. ' It has thus come on record that the applicants are working under the Manager Workshop and Warehouses (the opponent). It has also come on record that all the workers have been paid the "Bonus" except the applicants.
17. ' In all the documents, filed during the proceedings the word "Bonus" has been used, but the opponent through oral evidence tried to prove it as "ex gratia payment". It appears to be misconception or confusion of factual position on record. A copy of the judgment dated 30th November, 1980 of this Court has been brought on record in the instant case. The aforesaid order was passed on the application filed by the opponent's employees claiming the same "Bonus" under the similar notification and circumstances from the above-named opponent. Under direction issued by this Court the "Bonus" was paid to the claimants.
18. ' The opponent filed a statement showing the wages of the applicants. Certain employees are shown to have been paid more than Rs, 1,000 as their monthly wages. The opponent therefore contended that such employees cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
19. ' This statement does not show as to which month it pertains. Probably it may be of February, 1982 when it was confronted to the applicants' witness, whereas the claim of the applicants pertain to the year 1979 when the notification was issued. What was the wages of the applicants at the relevant time has not been brought on record.
20. ' Moreover as per law laid down by the Supreme Court as reported in PLD 1963 SC 340, only the basic wages are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of jurisdiction of the authority.
21. ' In 1984 PLC 587, it has been held by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that average wages period is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of jurisdiction of this Court.
22. In view of the discussion aforesaid I hold that the applicants are entitled to the claim as preferred.
23. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the application is allowed and the opponent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs, 16,567 (Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred sixty-seven only) in term of the annexure hereinto, for distribution to the claimants listed in the annexure.