1. SARDAR MUHAMMAD AMIR AKBAR KHAN (CHAMMAN).- This is an application under Standing Order No. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
2. Ordinance of 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) filed by S. M. Rafi, petitioner, against the Manager, Atlas Travels Limited, Rawalpindi, for salary with effect from 1st of December to 12th of December 1970, plus one month's salary in lieu of notice period of termination of service and gratuity equal to one month's pay as the petitioner served the respondent for over 1-- years.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by the respondent on 27-5-1969 at a salary of Rs. 245 per month in a given scale. His services were terminated with effect from 18-12-70. As per letter Exh. P-3, he was directed to collect his pay for the period from 1-12-70 to 12-12-70 from the Punjab Provincial Co-operative Bank Limited till the date when the bank had financial control on the respondent. The petitioner made an application to the bank for the payment of his dues on 2-1- 71 but the bank refused to make any payment on 13-1-1971 as per their letter Exh. P-4. The respondent then sent letter Exh. P-5 on 14-1-1971 to the Managing Director of the respondent who did not send a reply. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition on 10-3-1971 claiming the above amount.
4. The respondent denied his liability to pay the amount and asserted that the petitioner was not their employee and, as such, they were not liable to pay him anything. Limitation was also pleaded against the petition.
5. The parties were asked to lead their evidence on the preliminary objections. The petitioner examined himself and placed on record his appointment letters Exh. P-2 and its copy Exh. P-1 on which his appointment was confirmed by the Managing Director, Mr. Akram Niazi of the respondent.
6. He also placed on record letter of termination of his services Exh. P-3, reply of the bank Exh. P-4 and notice to the respondent Exh. P-5 and alleged that his appointment was made by the Executive Officer of the Bank who was working as a Manager for the respondent after obtaining sanction of the Managing Director of the respondent on telephone. No evidence has been led in rebuttal.
7. So far as the question whether the petitioner was an employee of the respondent or not is concerned, it stands established on record that he was actually employed by the respondent as is apparent from the confirmation order passed by Mr. Akram Niazi, Managing Director which has been exhibited PI/I on copy Exh. P-1 of the appointment letter. The termination letter Exh. P-3 also confirms this fact because at the the his services were terminated, he was considered to be in the employment of the respondent by the respondent himself. In view of these facts, the petitioner is entitled to get his dues from the respondent and not from the bank who held financial control for the respondent for a certain period.
8. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the petition is not within the as the grievance notice was not served on the respondent within 15 days as provided in Standing Order No. 18(a). A perusal of the provisions of Standing Order No. 18, shoves that the grievance notice is to be served within 15 days of the occurrence of the cause of grievance. We will, therefore, have to find out when did the cause of grievance arise to the petitioner in this case. The letter of termination of services of the petitioner shows that he was directed for his pay for the period from 1-12-1970 to 12-12-70 from the bank who held financial control on the respondent during that period. The petitioner approached the Bank on 2-1-1971, as per instructions of respondent. The bank refused to make any payment on 13-1-1971 as per letter Exh. P-4. This would show that the cause of grievance to the petitioner arose on the date on which the bank refused to make any payment to him. The grievance notice was given to the respondent on 14-1-1971, well within 15 days of the occurrence of the cause of grievance. As the respondent did not make-a reply to he petitioner's grievance notice, he filed the present petition on 10-3-71 within 60 days of the grievance having brought to the notice of the respondent. As such, the petition is within the. The objection about limitation is overruled.
9. Now remains the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed by him. The respondent does not claim to have made any payment of the petitioner. The respondent on the other hand denies its liability to pay to the petitioner. As such, no payment except the pay for six days as alleged by the petitioner was paid to him. Since the petitioner alleges that he was not paid his wages for the period from 1-12-70 to 12-12-70, the respondent is liable to pay his wages for that period. The petitioner claims that he was getting Rs. 275 per month at the the his services were terminated. He is entitled to receive wages for the period from 1-12-1970 to 12-12-1970 at this rate.
10. The petitioner was not served with one month's notice of termination of his services as required under Standing Order No. 12. He is, therefore, entitled to one month's notice pay also.
11. The petitioner has served the respondent for a period of one year and seven months. He is entitled to receive gratuity for to years calculated at the rate of 15 days' pay for each year and so he is entitled to one month's pay under this count.
12. The result of the above discussions is that we order the respondent to pay to the petitioner one month's notice pay plus one month's pay towards gratuity for to years' service plus pay for the period from 1-12-70 to 12-12-70 at the rate of Rs. 275 per month. In the circumstances, however, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.