' The two appeals captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 5-6-1988 and 23-4-1988 respectively recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby 55% running allowance was also allowed while calculating wages for working on festival holidays.
As common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant have argued that the respondents were entitled to 50% of the pay only for working on festival holidays according to the rules, therefore, the learned lower Court wrongly allowed 55% running allowance. They have made reference to clause (k) of para. 5 of section III, which deals with 'running allowance' and has argued that since the word 'pay' is given and not 'wages' for working on gazette holidays enumerated in the clause, the respondents were rightly allowed 50% of the pay and the learned lower Court wrongly accepted their grievance petition. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that no doubt the word 'wages' is used in para. 15 of section II, but since the said section deals with the cases of commercial transport staff and not running staff, the same is not applicable and since section III deals with running allowance, it only is relevant and applicable to the present case. The argument has no force. In the Personnel Manual Volume I the words 'basic pay' are used where the intention is that allowances would not be included, therefore, where the word 'pay' is used, it does not necessarily mean basic pay and can include allowances also. In para. 15 of section II it is also mentioned that the running staff who are already allowed to draw double wages for working on holidays indicated in paras. 1(e) and 5(K) of section III will continue to draw that privilege. The word 'wages' is used in the said para. First sub- para of para. 15 no doubt deals with line staff of commercial transportation, medical, engineering and mechanical departments but sub-para. (2) deals with running staff. Since the word `wages' is used in para. 15(1)(b) of section II and in para. 1(e) of the same section, the word 'pay' is used, it is clear that the intention is not that the word `pay' would mean basic pay. In the rules relating to the fixation of pay for moving over to the higher scales the words 'basic pay' have been used. It is thus clear that the term 'basic pay' is different from the term 'pay'. Basic pay may not include allowances specified. If the word 'pay' had been used in clause (k) of para. 5 of section III with the intention that it would mean basic pay, then in para. 15(1)(b) of section II the word 'wages' would not have been used. Even otherwise there appears to be no reason why running allowances should not be paid to the workers for working on festival holidays if they are entitled to the same for working on ordinary days. Apart from it, letter Exh. P.8 produced in the case of Shams-ur-Rahim etc. Makes the matter clear. The relevant paras. Reads as under:-- "It is brought to the notice of this office that the STEs of all Divisions except Rawalpindi Division are being paid 50% of pay instead of wages for the work done on festival holidays whereas STEs of Rawalpindi Division are being paid 50% of the wages in term of C.C.N./Lhr letter No, 27.1191/78-AL, dated 14-6-1979. Copy reproduced below:- ' The matter has carefully been examined and it is decided that the award given by the Central Industrial Court on 11-8-1962 is in respect of festival holidays only for which payment is to be made on the basis of wages (and not pay) as defined in section 2(iv) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936."
It is clear from the above quotation that the benefit of the award given by the Central Industrial Court on 11-8-1962 was extended to all other Divisions. The above quotation is from the copy of the letter of the Chief Personnel Officer, Lahore dated 27-9-1979. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court rightly allowed 50% of 55% running allowance besides 50% of the basic pay to the respondents of both the appeals.
3. As urn shot of the observations made above, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.