1. The petitioner was employed with the respondent No.1 on 1-4-1975 and his services were terminated on 7-4-1980. He served a notice under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but did not proceed further and filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming Rs.29,275, the details of which are as follows:-- The respondent No.2 by order, dated 12-6-1982 granted the application to the extent of Rs.16,955.
2. The amounts item-were allowed were as follows:-- (1)Cost of Living Allowance from 16-6-1979 to 27-4-1980 and for May, 1980.Rs. 1,265 (2)Overtime from 1-4-1975 to 27-4-1980 at the rate of Rs.240 per month.Rs. 14,640 (3)Bonus for 5 years from 1975 to 1980. Rs. 5,130 (4)Arrears of wages from 16-4-1980 to 31-5-1980. Rs. 1,400 (5)Encashment of 5 years casual leave etc. Rs. 6,040 Total: Rs. 28,475 Both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 filled appeal separately which were heard by respondent No.3 and by the impugned order he granted Rs.3,594 as follows:-- (1)C.L.A. From 16-6-1979 to 27-4-1980.Rs. 1,155 (2)Overtime from 1-4-1975 to 31-5-1977.Rs. 6,240 (3)Overtime from 1-6-1977 to 27-4-1980.Rs. 8,400 (4)Wages from 16-4-1980 to 27-4-1980.Rs. 440 (5)One month earned leave. Rs. 720 Total: Rs. 16,955 Compensation at the rate of 20% of the total amount.
3. Rs.599 Rs.3,594 Mr. Burney, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claim for bonus was covered by section 10-C of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
4. Ordinance, 1968 and it was for the respondent No.1 to establish that no profit was earned by it. In this regard on assessm ent of evidence produced before respondent No.2 both the authorities below have come to the concurrent finding that it has not been proved that respondent No.1 had earned any profit during the period for which the bonus has been claimed by the petitioner. In view of this finding the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained as condition precedent for grant of bonus under section 10-C that employer should have earned profits has not been established.-- Merely because both the authorities below have come to a wrong conclusion of fact cannot provide a ground for challenging the same in constitutional petition.
5. The next contention of Mr. Burney is that the petitioner's claim for overtime should have been allowed and that the same has been rejected without considering the evidence on record. This can hardly constitute a ground for challenging the impugned order as it seems I that the order has been passed after considering the evidence, documentary as well as oral produced by the parties.
6. The petitioner has not specified any where the period for which he has demanded overtime and has claimed at the flat rate of Rs.240 per month for the entire period of service. From the evidence it seems that from time to time overtime was paid to the petitioner. This finding of respondent No.3 cannot be assailed and cannot be termed as without lawful authority or without jurisdiction. No other point was pressed. The petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. A.E./R-4/K (1)C.L.A. From 16-6-1979 to 27-4-1980 Rs. 1,115 (2)Wages from 16-4-1980 to 27-4-1980Rs. 440 (3)Notice pay for the month of May 1980.Rs. 720 (4)One moth earned leave. Rs. 720 Total: Rs. 2,995