DECISION ' This is an application under section 38(3-a), I.R.O., 1969, filed by the applicant Pakistan Railways seeking suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribubal against the illegality and impropriety of an order, dated 14-12-1985 passed by the Sindh Labour Court .No,III, Karachi, as an appellate authority over an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wawf7 Act, Central Division Karachi, granting an amount of Rs,9,396 to the respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed as a semi-skilled fitter with the appellant Railways and was placed under suspension from 30-10-1978 to 10-3-1979 but was paid only 50% of his basic wages plus the usual allowances and on his reinstatement, he was not paid the remaining 50% of his wages as he was not assigned any reason for his suspension or was awarded any punishment for any offence. As per claim of the respondent, besides his entitlement under the relevant Labour Laws, he was also entitled for the claim under Pakistan Railways Fundamental Rules published in Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume II, the respondent claimed that as he has also performed over-time, therefore, he should also be paid the over-time.
Being aggrieved with the refusal order of applicant Pakistan Railways, the respondent submitted an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the learned Authority under payment of Wages Act, Central Division, Karachi, who allowed this application. As, the applicant Pakistan Railways was not satisfied with this order, therefore, it filed an appeal before the Labour Court who had passed the impugned order.
3. The applicant Pakistan Railways resisted the claims of the respondent that as per Pakistan Railways Rules, the respondent was not entitled to full wages for the period of suspension and more over, the respondent had never worked over-time so, he was not also entitled for any such amount.
Therefore, his application before the learned Authority was not maintainable.
4. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the applicant Pakistan Railways and also perused the record and proceeding of the case. Nemo was present on behalf of the respondent, namely, Syed Ali, Mr. Latif Saghar the learned Advocate for the applicant, Pakistan Railways, besides his other pleadings, has also submitted a photostat copy of a Decision of the High Court of Sindh, in the case of Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi v. Mst. Zareen Begum and 8 others passed on 19-11-1986, and thus, has rightly contended that the respondent, in view of the observation of the High Court was only entitled to his wages etc. But not for any compensation, as has been awarded in the present case. I would, therefore, agree with the contentions resisted by Mr. Latif Saghar the learned Advocate for the applicant Pakistan Railways and order accordingly.
5. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would direct the applicant, Pakistan Railways to make immediate payment of Rs,1,004 to the respondent, as his remaining 50% monthly wages which were not paid to him on his re-instatement and he will not be entitled to any other amount.