DECISION ' This revision application has arisen in the following circumstances:
2. The applicant was employed by the G.I.P. Railway on 7-6-1940. It is alleged that he had qualified as Station Master before opting for Pakistan, where he reported for duty on or about 27-11-1947. He states to have been exempted from passing P-II courses in Pakistan and had taken a refresher course which .Could be availed of by persons, who had already qualified as Station Master in India.
He was therefore entitled to the pay of Station Master from the date of joining in Pakistan, as decided by the Railway authorities; vide letter No, 937-A/7904, dated 31-10-1960, a document which has also been filed on behalf of the present respondent as D-4. He had made various representations for being given the salary admissible to the Station Master and had filed statement of deducted wages but with no effect. When he retired from service on 13-12-1979, his pay should have been Rs,, 840 exclusive of allowances but his pay had remained unfixed in spite of innumerable representations to the authorities.
3. When his claim was finally rejected on 12-4-1982, he filed an application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act where he filed statement of deducted wages amounting to Rs, 48,842 from 27-11-1947 to 13-12-1979 and claimed Rs, 52,500 as wages of LPR refused on termination of service to which he was entitled under the law. He further claimed computation/payment of gratuity in the sum of Rs, 21,033.50 which had been duducted from the gratuity, payable to him and finally he claimed compensation at the rate of ten times of the amount deducted.
4. The claim was contested before the aforesaid Authority on a number of grounds. The authority on the evidence led before him, by order dated 30-1-1985 ordered the payment of Rs, 5,51,7% to the applicant. The present respondent had preferred an appeal before the Labour Court and the appeal was partly allowed inasmuch as the compenastion awarded was reduced to two times as against five times granted by the Authority. This had resulted in the filing of Constitution petitions before the High Court by both the parties, and by consent the matter had been remanded to the Authority with permission to the parties to amend the claim application and file fresh documents if they so chose.
5. When the record was received by the Authority the present applicant had moved an application for amendment which was duly allowed. Thereafter evidence was led by the parties. By order dated 25-10-1985 the incoming Authority had granted the present applicant the following amounts. {{TABLE}}
(i) Deduction of pay Rs, 48,842,00
(ii) Encashment of refused LPR Rs, 5,850.00
(iii) Gratuity less paid Rs, 21,033.50
(iv) Five times compensation Rs, 378,627.50 Total: Rs, 4,54,353.00 {{TABLE}}
6. This had led to an appeal before the Labour Court from the side of Railway Department. The Labour Court found that the authority had the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and was justified in passing the order in regard to the encashment of the LPR, but the orders in regard to the payment of Rs, 48,842 and Rs,21,033.50 were set aside. The learned Presiding Officer was of the view that the Authority could not regulate the salary which had not been still fixed, as it would be going beyond the terms of sections 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. This resulted in this Revision application.
7. The case of Shaukat Ali and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Through the General Manager, North Western Railway, Lahore reported in PLD 1960 Lahore page 144 was cited before the learned Labour Court, wherein the definition of "wages" was gone into, and was found to include the remuneration which would, if the terms of the contract of employment expressed or implied were fulfilled be payable in respect of the work done in such employment. It was further observed therein that "if the Authority has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Payment of Wages Act, if the wages stated by the petitioners are denied by the employer will defeat the Act itself, and would make absolutely ineffective". However, the learned Labour Court was of the view that it was bound by the judgment of the Sindh High Court where a diametrically opposite view was taken-namely Nasiruddin and others v. Sindh Labour Court 1987 PLC 633. It was held therein that the authority could grant the wages which actually were, but could not enter into an enquiry to determine as to what the wages ought to be. Reference was made to a number of authorities from Indian jurisdiction.
8. It is not necessary to go into the matter as the issue is clinched by the judgment of our own Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos, 626 to 631 of 1989 decided on the 9th of June, 1991-namely Pakistan Railways v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others. The contention before the Supreme Court was that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the fixation of pay of the contesting respondents as the quantum of wages was a matter of serious dispute between the parties.
9. It appears from the judgment that this question had been examined in an earlier case which had been referred therein, and where it was observed "that the Authority is competent to determine the wages of an employee as deducible from the contract of his employment even though there may be serious dispute between the employer and the employee with regard to their. Quantum".
10. It has to be seen that the applicant had filed a chart of the wages that were due to him as a result of the order of the Railway authorities passed in 1960, and the figure which had been worked out on the basis of that document in regard to the pay to which the application was entitled, had not been disputed then or even now. What has been done by the authority was to tilt these figures which were unchallenged and order the payment thereof with compensation, to the applicant.
11. I am clearly of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside. As a result, I will allow the Revision Application and restore the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority.