' The decision, dated 5-12-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala, has been challenged in this revision, whereby the learned lower appellate Court modified the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, reducing the amount of delayed wages to Rs,930.93 only. The wage period, according to the petitioner, is 1-9-1978 to 31-1- 1979, whereas the learned lower appellate Court has found that the wages from 1-9-1978 to 21-9- 1978 only are payable.
2. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 21-9-1978.
The matter was before the Martial Law authorities also and when they were informed that the petitioner's services had been terminated, they asked the respondent to re-instate the petitioner as the allegations were being inquired into by the said authorities. The respondent firstly promised to re-instate the petitioner but later on showed their inability, with the result he remained terminated till his grievance petition lodged against the order of termination was accepted on 30-9-1981. The respondent challenged the order before this tribunal in an appeal which was accepted on 20-12- 1982 and the order of re-instatement was set aside. The order of this tribunal was upheld in writ, with the result that the petitioner after being terminated by the respondent was never re-instated and thus for all the time remained out of service.
3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without force that since the petitioner had been attending the enquiry before the Martial Law authorities and had been ordered by the said authorities to be re-instated, was entitled for the wages for the period he stood terminated. No doubt the Martial Law authorities had asked the respondent to re-instate the petitioner but they had no such power. The petitioner was never allowed to join duty after his services were terminated. The order of the Labour Court, no doubt, was with jurisdiction but it was set aside by the tribunal, so it ceased to have any effect. There is no evidence that under the order of the Labour Court the petitioner was given duty.
4. This argument too is devoid of force that according to the definition of 'wages' given in the Payment of Wages Act, doing of duty for claiming wages is not necessary. The necessary condition for being entitled to the wages is the fulfilment of the terms of the contract of employment.
According to a contract of employment, performance of duty is necessary. It has not been proved that in the contract of service of the petitioner, there was no condition of doing duty. No doubt, where an order of re-instatement has been passed by a competent authority, the employee concerned becomes entitled to wages from the date he reports for duty even though duty has not been given to him, A but in the case of the petitioner the order of re-instatement passed by the learned lower appellate Court was set aside in appeal and thus did not remain effective. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act did not consider these facts and thus fell in error in granting wages claimed by the petitioner. The learned lower appellate Court was in the circumstances discussed above, justified in accepting the appeal of the respondent and reducing the amount of wages.
5. As a result, there being no scope to interfere with the impugned decision of the learned lower appellate Court, the revision is dismissed.