1. ' Yousaf Masih, husband of Mst. Alus Bibi, respondent No, 4 was employed as a Sanitary worker with the Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. The said worker was declared incapacitated and in consequence thereof was retired from service on 14-3-1988. He died on 28-3-1988. After his death, his widow Mst. Alus Bibi, respondent No,4, sent a request in writing to the petitioner for the payment of pension and gratuity to her which was accordingly paid at the rate of Rs,281 per month as family pension under the provisions of Pension Rules, 1964. However, the petitioner refused to pay gratuity to her as the deceased was not found entitled under the law. An application was moved by respondent No,4 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for the grant of Rs,29,491 to her as gratuity.
2. Respondent No, 2 accepted the claim of respondent No, 4 by allowing her Rs,12,600 on 26-12-1989.
3. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court. No, 4, Faisalabad which was dismissed by him on 9-8-1990. A revision was filed by the petitioner which too was dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 20-11-1990.
4. These orders have been assailed by the petitioner through this Constitutional petition. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not a factory within the meaning of law and as such the contesting respondent was not a worker. The point was not raised by the petitioner in the written statement and as such the learned Tribunal did not allow the petitioner to raise it before the Tribunal. This point was being repeated before this Court as well.
2. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel inasmuch as no such objection was ever raised by the petitioner in their statements having been filed by them under the Payment of Wages Act. This is a mixed question of fact and law and until and unless evidence is led, the question cannot be decided in these proceedings. It is also argued that Government has decided not to allow gratuity in a case like this on the basis of a letter vide Annex. `RA'. It may be noted that Annexure 'R/1' is a letter having been issued by Punjab Finance Department which would only apply to servants of the Punjab Government. No evidence whatsoever was led by the petitioner before the Tribunals below that the aforesaid letter Exh. R/1 was applicable to the petitioner. It necessarily follows that petitioner could not stop the the payment of gratuity to its employees under the law.
5. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner Municipal Corporation is an autonomous body and it cannot be termed a Department of the Government of Punjab. The petitioner has its own rules and bye-laws and that if it decides to adopt any rules, instructions having been issued by the Government, they are required to adopt it in a regular manner under the law. In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal did not give any importance to the letter issued by the Government of Punjab. In the given circumstances no other view can be taken in this case.
6. Learned Law Officer supports the judgment of the learned Tribunal. He submits that no writ can issue in aid of injustice. The judgments of the Tribunals below are well-reasoned and are based on the evidence available on record. The learned counsel has failed to point out any legal flaw muchless jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment. It is well-settled law that no writ can issue in aid of injustice. In this behalf, reference may be made to the rule laid down in the cases of Federation of Pakistan v. Haji M. Saifullah PLD 1989 SC 166; Nawab Syed Ronaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236 and Tufail Muhammad v. Raja M. Zia Ullah Khan PLD 1965 SC 269.
7. Respectfully following the aforesaid cases, I proceed to dismiss the petition. It fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.