' This is a revision reporting that the order dated 17-1-1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur camp at Rahim Yar Khan, whereby the appeal brought against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 31-10-1987 was rejected, is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The petitioner had applied for the recovery of a deducted wages amounting to Rs,5,760 for the period from September, 1982 to December, 1982 in respect of pay, allowances and over time. The learned Authority had found that since the respondent was owning only one bus, the Payment of Wages Act was not applicable. The learned lower appellate Court confirmed the order of the Authority in appeal. According to section 1(4) of the Payment of Wages Act, the said Act applies to the persons employed in a factory or upon railways, but by means of a notification published in the Gazette of West Pakistan of 7-1-1966, the Payment of Wages Act was extended to persons employed in road transport service. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since according to section 2(7), the word 'vehicles' is used whereas the respondent owns only one bus, the Payment of Wages Act is not applicable. The term 'road transport service' is defined in subsection (7) of section 2 as under:- "Road Transport Service means a service carrying passengers or goods or both by road in vehicles for hire or reward."
According to this definition, the intention of the Legislature prima facie does not appear to be this that if a person plies only one vehicle, then his business does not A come within the definition of road transport service. Where the intention of the Legislature is that necessarily things should be more than one, then provision is made in the words "two or more". So if the intention of the Legislature had been this, then the definition would have been couched in the following words:-- "Road transport service means a service carrying passengers or goods or both by road in two or more vehicles for hire or reward."
' Again the word 'passengers' is plural but it prima facie does not mean that if per chance at tone time only one passenger travels in the bus, then the service would not be included in the definition of road transport service. On small routes only one vehicle carries passengers from a place to another and back, but it would not mean that such a service is not included in the definition.
According to the case of the petitioner, not one but the respondent owns three buses. Learned counsel for the respondent has made reference to two challans which show that in respect of the same bus the drivers were challaned. It does not mean that the respondent plies only one bus.
3. This is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner was not employed during the period for which he claimed wages, therefore, he was not entitled to any wages. Exh. P.2 is the challan showing that the petitioner was challaned and fined Rs,100. The number of the bus given is 6346 which the respondent owned. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the date given in the document Exh. P. 2 is of the date on which the petitioner was punished, therefore, it does not show that the petitioner is entitled to the wages claimed by him. Learned counsel says that the petitioner may have been challaned much earlier and before he was fined, he thus ceased to remain in service. No order of termination of his service has been brought on the record. There is also no evidence that the fine was deposited on a different date and not by the petitioner but someone else. The petitioner had made an application for summoning the record to prove his case but the application was not allowed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. This application was given not after closing the case, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be allowed to produce the record and the record should have been summoned. By the rejection of the application, miscarriage of justice has taken place. If the record required by the petitioner had been summoned, he may have proved his case satisfactorily.
4. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned Courts below, the case is remanded to the learned Authority for decision after summoning the documents, for the summoning of which the petitioner had made the application. The parties will be at liberty to produce any other evidence as well, if they so like.