This judgment shall dispose of one hundred and seventy four (174) revision petitions bearing Nos.
Lhr-604/1992-Punjab to Lhr-777/1992-Punjab filed by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore from the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore dated 7th of September, 1992, whereby 174 appeals filed by him from the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 on 31st of December, 1990 accepting the claim of the respondents partially, were dismissed.
2. The respondents who are 174 in number, are the employees of Pakistan Railways working in the Goods Sick Line, Lahore. On 23rd of May, 1987 they separately filed 174 applications under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 claiming wages at twice the rate of ordinary pay for work performed on festival holidays during the years 1984 to 1986.
3. The petitioner contended the claim of the respondents contending that according to Award of the Central Industrial Court in the Industrial Dispute between N.W. Railway Union, United Union of N.W.R. Workers and the P.W.R. Administration published in the Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary) on 11th of August, 1962 and accepted by-the West Pakistan Railway Board on 12th of September, 1962, they were entitled to 50% of their wages in addition to the wages due to them for working on festival holidays and were being paid accordingly. He also raised certain preliminary objections.
The Authority framed the following issues:-- "(1) Whether the respondent is not the `paymaster' and the employer of the petitioners? OPR
(2) Whether the Ex-Labour Officer is competent to plead and prosecute the suit of the petitioners in this honourable Court? OPP
(3) Whether the petitioners received, their claim up to 1/84 with their own consent and the present action falls under the provisions of law of estoppel? OPR
(4) Whether this honourable Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of the supervisory category of the staff whose wages exceed Rs.1,500 per month? OPR
(5) Whether the claim statement is liable to be rejected under rule 7 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 as the same is incomplete as it does not show number of festival holidays, actual wages and compensation payable, if any. OPP
(6) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the alleged claim or 50% of wages under the award 1962? OPP
(7) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the alleged claim in addition to the payment of 50% wages made under the award?
(8) Relief.
4. The respondents examined themselves in support of their claim. In rebuttal, Muhammad Saleem, an Upper Division Clerk entered the witness---box as R.W.1. Zulfiqar Niaz, Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Syed Shamim Ahmed Bokhari, Assistant Personnel Officer and Ghulam Ghaus, Head T.X.R.
Were also examined as C.W.1, C.W.2 and C.W.3 respectively. On the basis of this evidence, the Authority came to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled to wages at twice the rate of ordinary pay for work performed on festival holidays and since they had been paid only 50% of the wages as extra compensation for their work on festival holidays, they were entitled to 150% of the wages in addition to their normal wages for the festival holidays. It, accordingly, accepted the claim of the respondents vide its order dated 31st of December, 1990 as per the details given in the statement comprising 47 pages which was made an integral part of the order. It, however, overruled the preliminary objections which were raised by the petitioner.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed 174 appeals in the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its impugned judgment dismissed all the appeals affirming the findings of the Authority and holding that they were barred by time. Hence these revision petitions.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The finding of the learned Labour Court that the appeals filed by the petitioner before it were barred by time has not been supported by learned counsel for the respondents. Limitation for an appeal against a direction of the Authority is thirty days according to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. As already mentioned above, the Authority passed its order on 31st of December, 1990. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order on 4th of January, 1991. The copy was supplied to him on 14th of February, 1991. The appeals were filed on 5th of March, 1991. The amount allowed by the Authority was deposited with it by the petitioner on 27th of February, 1991. Excluding the period which was spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order, the appeals were filed within thirty days.
Therefore, the same were within time. This is conceded by learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in his arguments, pressed into service four legal objections; firstly, that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents as it involved interpretation of law; secondly, that the applications filed by the respondents suffered from non---joinder of a necessary party; thirdly, that Mr. Muzammil Pasha was incompetent to prosecute the applications of the respondents and fourthly, that the applications were incomplete, inasmuch as necessary details of the' claim had not been given therein.
8. As regards the first objections, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents should have applied to the Labour Court in the first instance for a decision in support of their claim before preferring it with the Authority. Section 15, subsections (2) and (3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that where contrary to the provisions of the Act, any deduction has been made from the wages of an employee, or any payment of his wages has been delayed, he may apply to the Authority for a direction to refund the amount so deducted or pay the delayed wages together with payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding ten rupees in the latter. It does not contemplate that- where the claim involves interpretation of law, the employee is required to obtain a declaration of his entitlement from the Labour Court before lodging the same with the Authority. After all, every claim in some measure involves consideration of the relevant provisions of law.
9. On the second objection, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents should have sued the Manager of the Goods Sick Line instead of the petitioner. The petitioner is the employer of the respondents, being the administrative head of the Goods Sick Line, Lahore.
The Goods Sick Line, P.W.R., Lahore was registered as a `factory' with effect from 21st of August, 1969 vide registration certificate Exh. P-2, issued b3rthe Chief Inspector of Factories, West Pakistan, Lahore on 5th of September, 1969. According to section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, every employer shall be responsible for the payment to persons employed by him of all wages required to be paid under the Act provided that in a factory if a person has been named as the Manager thereof, he shall be responsible for such payment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since a Railway official has been nominated as the Manager of the Goods Sick Line, he should have been impleaded as respondent instead of the petitioner. The petitioner has not adduced any concrete evidence to show that any person was named as the Manager of the Goods Sick Line. Of course, Ghulam Ghaus, Head TXR, while appearing as CW-3, answered in the affirmative the question whether he was the Factory Manager. Nevertheless, this answer without supportive documentary evidence is insufficient. Moreover, section 19 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that when the Authority is unable to recover from any person, other than an employer, responsible under section 3 for the payment of wages, any amount directed by such Authority, the Authority shall recover the amount from the employer. Therefore, the law contained in section 3 read with section 19 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 places the ultimate responsibility for the payment on the employer. In these circumstances, the failure of the respondents to implead the Manager of the Goods Sick Line does not per se render the applications filed before the Authority as incompetent, especially when it has caused no prejudice to the Railway Administration on account of the Manager having appeared before the Authority as a Court witness.
10. So far as the third objection is concerned, it too is without substance. Mr. Muzammil Pasha was allowed by the Authority, to represent the respondents before it vide his order dated 8th of October, 1988. Section 15, subsection (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that where any deduction has been made from the wages of an employee, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such employee himself, or any legal practitioner, or any official of a registered trade union, or any Inspector under the Act, or any heir of an employee who has died, or any other person acting with the permission of the Authority, may prefer his claim before the Authority. In view of this provision of law, Mr. Muzammil Pasha was competent to represent the respondents on account of his having been permitted to do so by the Authority.
11. The fourth objection pertains to procedure. It is contended that since the respondents did not give in their applications sufficient details of their claim, the applications could not be entertained.
In this connection, reference is made to rule 7, sub-rule (2) of the Payment of Wages (Procedure)
Rules, 1937. It provides that the Authority may refuse to entertain an application which is insufficiently stamped or is otherwise incomplete and shall return it at once with an indication of the defects. The Authority has observed in its order dated 31st of December, 1990 that the details of daily wages and claim of the respondents had been furnished in the claim statement. Since the details of the claim provided by the respondents were considered sufficient and the so-called insufficiency did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, this objection loses its significance.
12. As regards merits, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the respondents are the employees of Goods Sick Line and that this organization was registered as a `factory' with effect from 21st of August, 1969. He further admits that in view of this fact, the Award of the Central Industrial Court given in the year 1962 is inapplicable to the respondents. The claim of the respondents is based on section 49-I of the Factories Act, 1934 and rule 131 of the Punjab Factories Rules, 1978. Section 49-I runs as under:-- "49-I. Festival Holiday.---(1) Every worker shall be allowed holidays with pay on all days declared by the Provincial Government to be festival holidays.
(2) A worker may be required to work on any festival holiday but one day's additional compensatory holiday with full pay and a substitute holiday shall be allowed to him in accordance with the provisions of section 35."
Rule 131 is as follows:-- "131.---(1) In public utility services as mentioned in the Schedule of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the provisions of section 49-I of the Act regarding festival holidays shall apply to only those workers who are granted this facility by the manager through a notice displayed on the Notice Board prior to such holiday. All other workers shall attend to their normal duties. In such public utility services, a worker may be paid at twice the rate of ordinary pay for work performed on a festival holiday or one day's additional compensatory holiday with full pay and a substituted holiday in accordance with the provisions of section 35.
(2) The above provisions shall also apply to all other factories if the worker wants encashment instead of compensatory leave.
(3) The manager shall allow non-Muslim workers intending to enjoy their festival holidays to adjust the same against the festival holidays declared under section 49-I for others."
13. According to the above provisions of law, if a worker is required to work on any festival holiday, he shall be allowed a substitute holiday and also one day's additional compensatory holiday with full pay or wages in lieu of these two holidays. There is no ambiguity about it. If a worker is required to work on a festival holiday, he shall be entitled to payment at twice the rate of ordinary pay for work performed on such festival holiday. In this case, it is not denied that the respondents were required to work on all the festival holidays occurring during the years 1984 to 1986. It is also admitted that they were not allowed substitute and compensatory holidays. Therefore, they were entitled to payment of wages at twice; the rate of ordinary pay for work performed on those festival holidays. The respondents were admittedly paid only 50% of their wages for those holidays.
Therefore, the Authority, after calculations, allowed them wages for those festival holidays at the rate of 150% of their ordinary pay according to the statement which is an integral part of the order of the Authority. The veracity of the number of holidays during the years 1984 to 1986 and the rate of wages of the respondents given in the statement has not been challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments. He, however, has argued that since the respondents were paid wages at the ordinary rate plus 50% thereof as extra for the work done on the festival holidays, they are entitled to only the remaining 50% of the daily rate. This argument is misconceived. The respondents were entitled to wages for the festival holidays without performing any work on those days. Since they worked on festival holidays, they were entitled to wages for those holidays and also wages for proportionate number of substitute holidays as well as compensatory holidays.
However, they were paid wages for one day with extra wages at the rate of 50% thereof. It means that the balance of wages at the rate of 150% of the ordinary pay still outstands against the Railway administration. In this view of the matter, the order of the Authority and the impugned judgment of the learned Labour Court are unexceptionable.
14. In the result, all the above 174 revision petitions are dismissed.