DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated February 28, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,200.00 to Abdul Karim, respondent, towards his overtime dues.
2. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that no application lay to the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), for payment of overtime dues. The respondent's remedy, if any, lay before the authority constituted under section 12 of the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Shops Ordinance). Mr. Masood Mirza relied on section 13 of the Shops Ordinance, which lays down that: "No Court shall entertain any suit for the recovery of wages in so far as the sum so claimed-
(a) ---------..
(b) ..........---
(c) ---------..
(d) could have been recovered by an application under section 12."
3. Mr. S. H. Chishti, the learned Representative for the respondent, con--tends that an application under section 25-A of the Ordinance cannot be said to be a suit for recovery of wages. There is much force in this contention. Labour Courts are not Civil Courts. They have only certain powers of a civil Court in certain matters. I would hold that the application under) section 25-A of the Ordinance was maintainable.
4. The next question is as to whether the respondent has proved his claim for overtime wages.
There is the statement of the respondent on the one hand and on the other hand, there is the- statement of the Manager of the appellant concern. The respondent states that arrears of overtime wages are due to him. He has been cross-examined, but no question was put to him about the arrears of overtime dues. On the other hand, Mr. Yameen, the Manager of the appellant concern, was examined on behalf of the appellant. He stated that no wages were due to Abdul Karim for his overtime work. In fact, Abdul Karim did not do overtime duty. The Representative of the respondent did not cross-examine Mr. Yameen. It is contended that in the absence of any cross-examination of Mr. Yameen by the respondent's Representative, his statement should be taken to be correct. On the other hand, I find that Abdul Karim has also not been cross-examined as to his arrears of wages for overtime work. It has also been contended that the statement of Abdul Karim in respect of arrears of his dues should be taken to be correct. In the result, there is word against word. In the absence of anything in the statement of Abdul Karim to suggest that he is making a false statement, I would accept his statement in preference to that of the employer's Manager.
5. There is only one point that requires consideration. The admitted position is that Abdul Karim did not do overtime work on holidays. The learned Labour Court has awarded overtime wages even for holidays. The learned Labour Court must at least go through the application before accept--ing the claim of a party. Mr. Chishti for the respondent states that there will be 10 days' holiday in a year and, therefore, 25 hours' payment towards. Overtime work must be deducted.
6. In the result, the order of the learned Labour Court is modified to this extent that the appellant should pay Rs. 1,164.00 towards the overtime wages to Abdul Karim within one month.