1. ' By this common order I intend to dispose of the above seven constitutional petitions.
2. ' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are that the ex-employees or the legal heirs of ex-employees filed applications in the Court of Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) at Hyderabad. In two cases namely, C.P.S-61 of 1984 and C.P.S-67 of 1984 only gratuity was claimed, whereas in the remaining cases gratuity and the payment for the group insurance was claimed. The above applications were resisted by the applicant and, inter alia it was pleaded that since there was a Manual of the department, the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
3. Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), were not applicable by virtue of proviso I to clause (c) of section 1. However, the Authority on the basis of the judgment given by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 28-10-1980 reported in 1981 PLC 491 held that the P.W.D. Manual does not contain statutory Rules, and granted the aforesaid applications. The applicant being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Authority filed appeals before the Labour Court No,Vi at Hyderabad Sind which were dismissed on various dates on the ground that the appeals were not competent as the petitioner had failed to file the certificate of deposit of the amount under the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above orders has filed the above petitions.
4. ' In support of the above petitions, Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows:-
(1) That by virtue of proviso I to clause (c) of section 1 of the Ordinance the application of the Ordinance was excluded and therefore, the Authority could not have granted the said applications on the basis of the provisions of the. Ordinance.
(2) That the gratuity could have been computed from the date of confirmation and not from the date when the employee was employed on work charged establishment.
5. ' Adverting to the above first contention, it may be observed that subsection (2) of section 1 of the Ordinance inter alia provides that it applies to every industrial establishment or commercial establishment wherein 20 or more workmen are employed directly or through any other person whether on behalf of himself or any other person or were so employed on any day during the preceding twelve months. It further provides that it will also apply to such classes of the industrial and commercial establishments as Government may, from time to time by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf. Proviso I to clause (c) which is pertinent to the controversy in issue lays down that nothing in the Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein.
6. It is an admitted position that there are no Government statutory, rules dealing with the question of gratuity or the group insurance. In my view simpliciter the fact that there are certain statutory rules relating to disciplinary action etc., for the Government employees will not exclude the application of all the provisions of the Ordinance. The application of the Ordinance will be excluded only in respect of the matters for which statutory rules have been provided by the Government. Since there are no statutory rules relating to gratuity and group insurance, in my view, the provisions of the Ordinance relating to the above two items shall be applicable even to a Government employee falling within the definition of a workman. The view taken by the Authority seems to be in consonance with law.
7. As regard the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will suffice to observe that for the purpose of computing the amount of gratuity, it is the length of service which is made the basis and not the factum whether he was a confirmed employee or he was a temporary employee. The authority has worked out the amount of gratuity on the basis, of the length of service and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the same.
8. It may also be pertinent to observe that under the law the petitioner had adequate alternate remedy which they failed to avail by non-depositing the amount as required under the Payment of Wages Act. In any case, I have examined the orders of the Authority on merits and for the aforesaid reasons I am of the view that the orders of the Authority are in consonance with law.
9. ' The petitions have no merit and, therefore, they are dismissed in limine.