1. ' By this order, I will dispose of the application filed under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, by the applicant for recovery of Gratuity amount.
2. ' Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant was employed in the year 1953 under the opponent abovenamed. He was retired from service due to superannuation of his age with effect from 30th April, 1983.
3. ' At the time of retirement, the applicant was employed as permanent workman and was getting Rs, 1.123 as his monthly emoluments. On the basis of this rate of wages the claim of Gratuity amounting to Rs, 22,460 has been filed by the applicant.
4. ' The opponent filed written objection and denied the liabilities.
5. ' The following issues were settled with the consent of the parties (1)Whether the application is maintainable in law and this Court has jurisdiction to try the matter ?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed or any party thereof ?
6. (3)What should the order be ?
7. ' The counsel for the applicant, filed an application, placing on record, a copy of the unreported judgment, dated 4th December, 1984, and prayed that in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Sind High Court the preliminary issue be heard first and matter disposed of accordingly.
8. ' I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the proceedings. My findings with reason therefor are as under :- ' Mr. Bashir Awan, submitted that about six cases of the similar nature were filed by the ex- employee of the Irrigation and Power Department : which were contested by the opponent. The claim/applications were allowed by this Court and the opponent Government Department preferred appeals, which were also dismissed by the learned Sind Labour Court Hyderabad.
9. Subsequently the Government filed writ petitions, but the Hon'ble Sind High Court, after hearing the Government Counsel, dismissed all the writs and maintained the order of this Court. The High Court held that, in absence of any statutory rules, dealing with the Gratuity and Group Life Insurance, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, will be applicable, even in the Government Department.
10. Mr. Awan also referred a latest decision on the similar point, of the Sind High Court, reported in PLD 1985 Kar. 112 (February Part) wherein it has been held that the Authority has the jurisdiction to deter- mine the claim, not covered under the statutory rules even if such rules framed by the Government Department.
11. He further submitted that admittedly, no statutory rules governing the payment of Gratuity or Group Life insurance, has been framed by the opponent department, therefore, the applicants' claim has to be determined under the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and this Court has the jurisdiction to grant the relief.
12. ' Mr. Ibrahim Soomro, the learned A. G. P. Repeated his submissions and contended that since the opponent is the Government Department, therefore, provisions of labour laws are not applicable on the establishment, where the claimant was working and consequently the Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief.
13. ' To this Mr. Awan submitted that all such objections were raised by the Government in the writs before the Hon'ble Sind High Court, but were found not favoured and repelled (vide judgment dated 4th December, 1984).
14. ' I have gone through the case-law cited herein above and of the view that the applicant was a permanent workman within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and there being no statutory rules framed by the opponent, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, will alternatively be applicable on the establishment of the opponent and the applicant is entitled to the claim of the Gratuity and Group Life Insurance.
15. ' The opponent in the reply statement disputed the date of appointment of the applicant, and contended to be 1st January, 1958. The applicant in his affidavit in evidence reiterated the year of his appointment as 1953, and filed a copy of the letter dated 1st July, 1953 (Exh. A/2) issued by the opponent. In cross-examination neither the statement made in Affidavit by the applicant, nor the aforesaid document was disputed. The assertion of the applicant that he was appointed in the year 1953 remained unchallenged.
16. ' The applicant has admittedly worked for 30 years, and was drawing Rs, 1,123 per month, being a monthly rated workman. The wages as mentioned in the application have not been disputed by the opponent. The applicant is therefore, entitled to the following relief:
1. Gratuity for 30 years ... Rs, 22,460 In view of the discussion, I allow the application and award Rs, 22,460 (Rupees twenty-two thousand four hundred sixty only), and direct the opponent department to deposit the same with this Court within 30 days hereinafter, for disbursement to the applicant/claimant.