' The decision, dated 16th April, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,
5. Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
2. At 5.00 p. m. The respondent was asked to go to the residence of Deputy Agricultural Manager who wanted to go to the field on duty. The stand taken by the respondent was that his normal duty hours were over and as the system of payment of overtime wages had been stopped he would not give overtime. He also said that his mother was ill, so he had to go home.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Factories Act does not apply to the respondent, so no question of fixation of duty hours arises and that the respondent was to give duty for 24 hours. This is wrong that the Factories Act does not apply. The appellant is a Mills where the manufacturing process is done. The appellant, no doubt, is not directly employed in any manufacturing process but admittedly he is employed in a Mills. The objection is not that he is a worker as defined in the Factories Act nor this is necessary for him to be such a worker. Apart from it P.W. 1 has said that working hours are from 8.30 to 4.30. So at 5.00 p.m. The duty hours of the respondent were off. He was not given any overtime chit under which he could have claimed overtime wages. Moreover, the other ground given by the respondent for declining to do duty after 4.30 was that his mother was ailing. The ground was not refuted or controverted by any cogent evidence. P. W. 1 admitted that the respondent had said that someone was ill at home, so he had to leave. No doubt, in the grievance petition the illness of the mother was not pleaded but since during the enquiry such a plea was set up as admitted by the witness examined before the enquiry officer, it cannot he said that the appellant was surprised with such a plea. Before the learned lower Court, the respondent stated so in his statement, so the appellant had opportunity to rebut it. PLD 1984 Quetta 99 is not helpful because the law of pleadings as enunciated in C. P. C. Is not applicable to labour cases. 1980 PLC 724 is not helpful as no question of overtime was involved and during duty hours the worker had in that case refused to work.
4. As a result, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.