' The two revisions captioned above emanate from the decisions dated 26-4-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad in his appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, dismissing the appeals of the petitioners.
2. The respondents are the employees of WAPDA. They were transferred en bloc to the appellant when the latter was joined on the discontinuation of Machinery Pool Organization of WAPDA. The WAPDA issued deputation policy on 12-6-1974 and issued letter dated 12-6-1975 (Exh. P-6 in the case of Muhammad Munir and Exh. P-4 in the case of Muhammad Rashid) allowing deputation allowance to its employees sent to the appellant on deputation. This letter was circulated by the petitioners to all the employees of WAPDA, who were with it on deputation vide its endorsement (Exh. P-7 in the case of Muhammad Munir and Exh p-5 in the case of Muhammad Rashid) at the rate of 20% of the pay. The documents do not bear exhibit marks but in the judgment of the Authority the abovementioned exhibit marks have been allotted to them. Thereafter, WAPDA issued another letter to the effect that deputation allowance would not be admissible to those WAPDA employees who were sent to the petitioners en bloc. This gave cause of grievance to the respondents and they brought applications to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act treating it as an illegal deduction. The petitioners were allowed but on appeals the cases were remanded by the learned lower appellate Court for the decision of the within time and repeated the grant of relief.
3. So far as merits are concerned the decisions of the learned Courts below are correct. A right had accrued to the respondents under the earlier letter issued by WAPDA allowing deputation allowance to all its employees and that letter was impliedly accepted by the petitioners by circulating it to the respondents and other employees without any objection or reservation of right to challenge the same. After giving an impression to the respondents and others that deputation allowance at the rate of 20% was payable, the allowance could be withdrawn afterwards with the consent of the respondents. It became a vested right.
4. But the question of limitation has been wrongly decided. Deputation allowance was disallowed by letter dated 13-11-1975 but even the first application under section 15, Payment of Wages Act was brought beyond the period of three years. Muhammad Munir did state in his statement before the learned trial Court that he had made application Exh. P-8 to the petitioners but no such application is on the file. In the case of Mukhtar Ahmad, whose case has been decided separately, an application Exh. As P-8 was given and the same was forwarded by his boss vide Exh. P-9 exhibited in that case and he has been given benefit of the said representation and his case has been treated as within time. As the respondents did not make any representation, their petitions were hopelessly time-barred. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the petitions of the respondents were rightly held as within time by the learned Courts below. The learned trial Court has observed that Labour Court No. 4 had accepted the claim of the respondents but this observation is erroneous. Labour Court No. 4 had allowed deputation allowance to one Sh. Aziz-ul-Haq vide its order dated 16-8-1978 but no such order was ever passed on the said date in favour of any of the present respondents. The petitions of the respondents, therefore, are time barred.
5. As a result, the revisions are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned Courts below, the petitions of the respondents are dismissed as time-barred.