' The two revisions captioned above arise from the decisions, dated 23-5-1982 delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi in his appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. As common questions of facts and law are involved in both the revisions, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The petitioners belong to the running staff and are allowed 55% running allowance. They are entitled to three kinds of dearness allowances under rules II,(6) (i), (ii) and (iii) of Personnel Manual Volume-I. Rule 6(i) allows Rs,35 to the employees drawing pay up to Rs,700 with marginal adjustments for those drawing pay between Rs,700 and Rs,735 with effect from 1-8-1973. Rule 6(ii) makes them entitled to a special dearness allowance at 10% of pay subject to minimum of Rs,50 and maximum of Rs, 150 with effect from 8-6-1974. Rule 6(iii) further allows with effect from 7-4- 1975 dearness allowance at flat rate of Rs, 25 per month. In P.R. Gazette No, 12 of 15-6-1977 an increase at 10% of the basic pay and the dearness allowance that would have, but for the said Notification, been admissible on 1-5-1977 was allowed. The pay of the petitioners was, in accordance with the said notification fixed calculating the dearness allowance after adding 55% running allowance in the pay and the petitioners had been getting the said pay accordingly. On 15- 1-1978 another notification No, 2 was published by which the word "thereon" was inserted after the words "dearness allowance" and before the words "that would", After this amendment the respondent re-fixed the pay of the petitioners excluding 55% running allowance from the pay, causing a reduction in the emoluments. This actuated the petitioners to bring grievance petitions to the learned lower Court. The learned lower Court did not agree to direct that 55% running allowance be included in the pay and dearness allowance be calculated thereon.
3. It has been argued by the representative of the petitioners that the right given to the petitioners by Gazette Notification No, 12 could not be taken back by the subsequent notification as the notification has been acted upon by the respondent and it was accepted by the petitioners, who had been for some months getting emoluments accordingly. He has cited PLD 1965 Pesh. 47; PLD 1971 SC 846 and PLD 1969 SC 407. So far as PLD 1971 SC 846 is concerned, no amendment in the rules was made afterwards. Rather the Governor had against the existing rules adopted a special method of recruitment according to which, 46 candidates were selected for the posts of Assistant Agricultural Engineer and were about to complete two years training when they were called upon to again appear for selection on the ground that previous selection was not according to the rules.
It was held that so far as 46 selected candidates were concerned, the earlier recruitment rules should be deemed to have been modified. In the case from which the abovementioned ruling arose, rule of estoppel was applicable, which is not applicable in the present case. The selected candidates had accepted the offer and had actually gone on training and were about to complete it. Some of them may have abandoned the previous engagements, so rule of estoppel applied. In the present case the petitioners did not do any act. They merely drew the emoluments fixed. So far as PLD 1969 SC 407 is concerned, the President had fixed the pay at Rs, 1,000 which the employee had been receiving. It was held that it could not be afterwards reduced. There also rule of estoppel was applicable. The employee had accepted the job on the fixation of pay at Rs, 1,000. But in the present case the petitioners were already the employee of the respondent and not that on the fixation of pay according to Notification No,12, they had for the first time accepted the assignments.
It has also been argued that under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the right accrued to the petitioners under Notification No,12 are saved. Firstly, section 6 applies where any previous Act or Regulation has been repealed. In the present case the previous Notification was not repealed but was amended. Secondly if the appealing Act has any different intention, then the right accrued under the repealed Act will not stand saved. In the present case, there is clause (12), which says that all existing rules and orders relating to matters dealt with in Gazette No, 12 shall be deemed to have been modified to the extent indicated in the said Gazette. Since by the insertion of the word, "thereon" the dearness allowances are to be calculated on the basic pay only not including 55% running allowance, all the previous provisions and Notifications including section 11(6) (iv) and rule 2003(21) (a) F.R. 9 stand modified to that extent. Reference has been made to section 21 of the General Clauses Act also but it goes against the petitioners. This section allows the revision withdrawal, amendment and modification of the Act and Regulations. According to this section, the respondent had jurisdiction to amend and modify Gazette Notification No,12 by another Gazette Notification No,2, dated 2-1-1978.
4. The other point argued is that retrospective effect could not be given to the Notification No,2, dated 2-1-1978. Reliance has been placed upon PLD 1965 Pesh.
47. It has been observed in the said ruling that Courts should not given retrospective effect unless compelled thereto by the words of the statute. In the present case the words "ab initio" have been used giving the Notification No,2, dated 2-1-1978 retrospective effect from the date when Notification No,12, dated 15-6-1977 was enforced. There is thus no force in the argument of the learned representative that the amendment will not apply to the existing employees and that it would apply to the persons who came in service after 2-1-1978. However, the petitioners got a vested right by getting pay for the period before, Notification No,2 of 1975 was passed, so no recovery of the same can be made. But the respondent is entitled to fix the pay according to Notification No,2 of 1978 for .The period after that.
5. As a result, the revision is disposed of accordingly.