This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 27-10-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts are that on the allegation that the appellant had charged less fare while booking livestock, an amount of Rs,3,552 were ordered to be deducted from the salary of the appellant in 24 equivalent instalments. The respondent in the written statements raised objection that the appellant was not a workman and that the grievance petition was time-barred. The learned lower Court has answered the objection in favour of the respondent and holding that the allegation had been proved against the appellant observed that the deduction was rightly ordered. So far as the objection of the respondent to the effect that the appellant is not a workman is concerned the contention is that the appellant is a supervisor. No doubt, the appellant admitted this fact, but there is no evidence with regard to the wages. In exception (b) to section 2(xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 wherein the term 'workman' has been defined, there are two conditions for ousting an employee from the definition of 'workman'. One is that he should have supervisory duties and the other is that his wages should exceed Rs,800 per month. Since there is no evidence about the wages, the learned lower Court has wrongly declared the appellant as non-workman.
3. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, there too finding of the learned lower Court is incorrect. Ex. R-7 whereby deductions were ordered does not carry any date and only month and year are given. The month is February and the year is 1985. Moreover, there is no evidence when this letter was conveyed to the appellant. Copy of it was endorsed to the station master but there is no evidence if it was got noted down by the appellant and if so on what date. The grievance notice is dated 12-6-1985 and the grievance petition was presented on 28-7-1985 i,e, within two months and fifteen days, therefore, from the date of grievance notice it was not time-barred.
4. So far as merits are concerned the learned lower Court has wrongly held that the appellant was responsible for charging less fare. In Ex.R-4 the appellant took the plea that the fare was charged less due to the mistake in the list in which fare was given. The appellant brought on.the,record the said list which is Ex.P-2. In column No,2 the fare is given as Rs,1,446. The appellant, therefore, was not responsible and the order of deduction is wrong.
5. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and the order of the deductions the respondent is directed to refund the amount already deducted and not to make further deductions.