It is argued that respondent No. l was serving with respondent No.2 as Junior Clerk in M.P.O./WAPDA which was abolished on 31-8-1974 in pursuance of Government decision and instead of it a Company under the name and style of Mechanised Construction of Pakistan Ltd. (M.C.P.L.) was incorporated as private company. The services of the officers and staff of defunct M.P.O., about 3500 in number, were transferred in en-block on deputation basis to the newly-created company.
The terms and conditions were issued through the office orders dated 16-11-1974 and 2-4-1975 respectively.
2. The respondent No.1 claimed that he was entitled to deputation allowance for the period he remained with M.C.P.L. The claim was refuted on the ground that according to the terms and conditions of deputation the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any deputation allowance. The result was that the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the respondent No.3, Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Faisalabad. The petition was accepted vide order dated 30-11-1982.
The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.4 against this order, which was dismissed vide order dated 26-4-1983. The petitioners assailed this order through revision petition before the respondent No.5, who dismissed the same vide order dated 26-2-1984. Hence present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No. l was not entitled to deputation allowance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the deputation. It is added that the respondent No. l being civil servant could only seek remedy of his grievance before the Service Tribunal under section 17(i)B of the WAPDA Act. Therefore, the respondents Nos.3 to 5 have no jurisdiction. The learned counsel on merits has referred to decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1990 (Mechanised Construction) wherein it was held that the respondents were not entitled to deputation allowance.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the petitioner and maintains that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any deputation allowance as per terms and conditions of the service specially he remained for about 11 years. He served with the company from August 1974 up to 11-11-1981 i.e. For over seven years and during this period neither he was getting any deputation allowance nor he ever claimed.
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the parties present. The question for discussion is whether the respondent No. 1 was entitled to the deputation allowance or not? This question has authoritatively been decided in the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The relevant portion reads as under:-- "There is a letter dated 2-4-1975 which provides that WAPDA employees transferred to deputation to Mechanised Construction of Pakistan will be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in this letter. According to this letter, other fringe benefits were allowed as admissible in the foreign service. Nowhere, in this letter, it is stated that the deputation allowance would also be admissible to the private respondents. This fact was further clarified by letter dated 13-11-1975 wherein it is stated that `20% deputation pay is not admissible to the WAPDA personnel transferred en block to M.C.P. Such staff should be treated on the same footing as the staff of the Electricity Department transferred by the former West Pakistan Government to WAPDA in 1969, i.e. Without any benefit of Deputation Pay'. The private respondents though transferred in 1974 did not make any grievance about the non-payment of deputation allowance. They moved the application in the year 1985.
They served the appellant without getting any deputation allowance for about 11 years. The private respondents did not agitate at the time of their en block transfer to the appellant-company. No document has been produced to show that the private respondents were entitled to the deputation allowance."
5. The upshot of this discussion is that respectfully following the decision of the Supreme Court, this writ petition is accepted. The result is that the orders of the respondents 3 to 5 are set aside and the application of respondent No. l under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.