JUDGMENT Abdnl Ghafoor Lodhi, J.-This is a revision reporting that the order dated 9- 12-i9s5 recorded by the learned presiding Officer, Punj b Labour Court No. 2, Lahore in its appellate jurisdiction and the order dated 23-9-1984 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The respondent challenged the order of fix tion of his pay in a petition brought under section 15 of the payment ot Wages Act. Previously with regard to a different period the respondent had brought similar application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act which had been accepted. The subsequent petition was accepted on the basis of the previous order. The previous order was not challenged in appeal, nor came before this Court under any revision. The question of fixation of the pay of the respondent arose for the reason that the National pay Scales were intr duced in the Railways on 1-3-1972. The fixation cannot be checked and it cannot be seen whether it has been done rightly or wrongly unless it is disclosed in what scale the employee concerned was and what pay he was drawing immediately before the NP3 scales were introduced on 1-3-1972. Likewise it is difficult to examine the question unless it is shown in what new scale of pay the respondent was placed after 1-3-1972 and what was the t etail of that stale. The learned representative appearing for the respondent was asked to disclose these facts from the file but he showed his inability because the case was not fought by the parties and decided by the learned courts below in that manner.
I do not find any force in the argument of the learned representative that since the fixation had been ordered to be wrong by the Arth nity in the previous order, the subsequent petition was rightiy decided on its bsis. Even the previous petition was not decideu considering the facts mentioned above. It is said that the witness appearing for the Railways had in that case stated that the fixation had Deen wrongly done. No copy of the statement of the said employee ot the Railway is on the record, it, therefore, canaot be said what he had actually stated. Even if it b said that the said witnesses had admitted that the fixation had not been done correctly, yet it was to be decided by the Authority even in the previ us case what was the correct fixation and this could not be dene unless the scale and the pay which the respondent was drawing immediately before the introduction of National pay Scales on 1-3-197- and what was the National Pay Scale on 1-3-1972 in which the respondent was placed. Mode ef fixation is given in the notification whereby the national pay scales were introduced and the said notification's also not on the record. The decisions of the courts below, therefore, are not sustainable.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned courts below, the case is remanded to 'he learned Authority for fresh decision ta the light of the observations mad- above after affor ing opportunity to both the parities to produce evidence, Nemo for the parties.
S.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 75 ILahore] Present: Abdul Ghafour Lodhi, J.
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKTSTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE versus MUHAMviAD HAROON Revision No. GA 232 of 1986, decided on 21st January, 1987. Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1937) --S. 15-Payment of subsistence allowance during suspension-Claim of difference in such allowances (short paid) after three years-Limitation whether applicable-Held : Since the suspension is a continuing wrong, the emoluments to which a person is entitled during the suspension and has not been paid to amounts to coatinuing wrong, therefore, in such cases no limitation starts-Held further: The mistake of calculation in the cases where right is not denied, can be at any time corrected and if the correction is refused, the person concerned can have re-ceurse to an appropriate forum. (Para. 2)
For the Petitioner : Irfan Qadir, Advocate.
Respondent: in person.
Date of hearing : 19th January, 1987.
JUDGMEMT Abdul Ghafeer Lodhi, J.-Thisis a revision reporting that the order dated 23-11-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala and that of the Authority dated 25- 11-1984, are wrong and improper and thus of no legal effect.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was proceeded against on the allegation of committing theft. He was dismissed, from service. Before that ha was brought under suspension.
During suspension ha was paid subsistence allowance. The dispute is that the suspension allowance paid to him was deficit. The respondent, therefore, made an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of deducted wages, which was accepted. According to the respondent, he was entitled to Rs, 16,440 but he was paid Rs. 11, 176, only The plea taken by the petitioner was that the petition was time-barred. The period for which short payment was made is splittad into two parts. First period is from 5-11-1974 to 8-12-1975 and the second is from 6-2-1976 to 5-4-1978. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since short payments were made, between 5-11-1974 and 8-12-1975 that for the second time from 6-2-1976 to 5-4-1978, the petition brought on 15-11-1983 being beyond the period of three years was time barred. The argument has no force. The suspension is a continuing wrong if it is illegal. When a person is reinstated holding that the suspension was wrong, grievance arises to him for claiming full or fraction of the wages for the said period. In the present case he was reinstated by way of mercy which means that the charges were proved and only the punishment was withdrawn. Since the suspension is. a continuing wrong, the emoluments to which a person is entitled during the suspension and has not been paid to amounts to continuing wrong, therefore, in such cases no limitation starts, The right of the respondent to the subsistence allowance was not denied since he was paid Rs. 11,
176. The mistake appears to he of calculation no period of limitation started. The petitioner did not deny the right of the respondent to the subsistence allowance. The mistake of calculation in cases where right is not denied, can be at any time corrected and if the correction is refused, the person conoerned can have recourse to an appropriate forum. If compensation bad been allowed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, it would not have been proper but this is not the case here. The order is for the actual difference between Rs. 16, 440, the amount to which the respondent was entitled, and Rs. 11, 176 which was admittedly paid to him.
3. So far as the entitlement of the respondent to the difference is concerned, the question has not been contested before me.
4. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Nemo for the parties. --------- .