' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 18-8- 1992 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan in Constitution Petition No, 340 of 1991 filed by the appellants against the order dated 17-9-1991 of the Presiding Officer, Ist Labour Court, Balochistan, Quetta, in Appeal No, 3 of 1991 (described as Case No,3 of 1991), dismissing the same. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the following questions:-
(i) Whether Authority under the payment of Wages Act had the jurisdiction to allow a claim where the disputed portion of the wages itself required determination alongwith the entitlement?
(ii) Whether the allowance in dispute was granted prospectively alone and not retrospectively?
(iii) Whether the appellate authority could enhance the provisional amount on an appeal by the appellant without notice to him in the matter?
2. The brief facts are that late Anwar Ahmed Khan, who is now represented by his legal representatives i.e,, the respondents, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, was an employee of the Pakistan Railways. He was posted as "Shed Man Incharge at Mir Jawa Iran from 8-5-1975 to 16- 10-1981, when he was transferred and posted at Ahmed Wal Railway Station, where he served till his retirement from service on 20-8-1984.
3. It appears that on 27-7-1987 the deceased filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O., before the Labour Court claiming payment of Foreign Allowance for the period which he served in Ex Pakistan territory i.e, Mir Jawa Iran. The above application was declined by the Labour Court by its order dated 24-4- 1988, against which the deceased filed an appeal (Appeal No, 11 of 1988) before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The above appeal was disposed of by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan, by its order dated 7-11-1988 The operative portion of the above order reads as follows:- "It has been brought to my notice that actually the application for claiming the wages would lie to authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Obviously the application before the Labour Court was incompetent. In view of such legal position with consent, the order of the learned Labour Court passed on 24th May, 1988 is set aside. The application be returned to the appellant by the office after keeping a copy thereof on the record.
' The appellant is at liberty to file the application before a forum mentioned hereinabove.
' The respondent could agitate the points which he has raised before me before that forum.
' No order as to costs."
4. After that, the deceased filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 hereinafter referred to as the Act, on or about 12-11-1988. Alongwith the above application an application under sections 5/14 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay. In the main application, the deceased had claimed U.S. Dollar 20,411.60 and dearness allowance amounting to Rs,4,020.
5. The above application was resisted by the appellants, inasmuch as a number of preliminary objections were raised including as to the maintainability of the above application before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, hereinafter referred to as the Authority, and the question of limitation. On merits, it was also denied that the deceased was entitled to any amount.
The deceased produced five witnesses in support of his claim, but the appellants, in spite of several opportunities, failed to adduce any evidence. It seems that while the above application was pending, the deceased died on 12-8-1990. Thereupon, by an order dated 18-8-1990, the respondents were brought on record in place of the deceased. The authority, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by its order dated 30-4-1991 allowed the aforesaid application in the following terms:- "11. The relief assessed tentatively at US $ 1,000 which is equivalent to Rs,9,900, the same calculated on the basis of record thus placed for perusal; together with cost of Rs, 50 awarded on 3-11-1990.
None of the parties during the proceedings of the case ever placed the figures relating to actual amount thus involved. However, under the circumstances the respondents were directed to submit statements of accounts as regard this amount within six months period. Keeping in view, of course, the admissibility thereof to another person of the same legal status entitled for foreign Allowance is concerned."
6. Against the above order, the appellant filed aforesaid appeal, which was disposed of by the order dated 17-9-1991 in the following terms:- "20. The nutshell of the discussion is that order of the Authority dated 15-6-1981 is not a speaking order therefore same is set aside and it is directed that applicant be paid US $ 20,411.60 equivalent about to Rs,2,04,462 (calculated of US $ Rs,9,87,141 which was prevalent in years 1975 to 1980) towards the head of foreign allowance after the deduction of amount which he received in shape of Persian territory allowance and extra Persian territory allowance.
22. The claim regarding dearness allowance of Rs, 4,020 was considered but according to the appellants own version the same was not being paid to the employees who were getting foreign allowance. Thus claim of applicant/respondent in respect of Rs, 4,020 is rejected."
' Against the aforesaid orders, the appellants filed above Constitution petition, which was dismissed by the aforementioned judgment dated 18-8-1992. After that, the appellants filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider the above questions.
7. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Tariq Mehmood, learned AOR appearing for the appellants, has vehemently urged that the Authority had no jurisdiction as the Foreign Allowance claimed by the deceased could not be considered as part of wages.
8. The above contention is devoid of any force as clause (vi) of section 2 of the Act defines the term "wages" as under:- "(vi) "Wages" means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behaviour of the person employed or otherwise, to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment, but does not include-
(a) The value of any house accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity, or of any service excluded by general or special order of the Provincial Government;
(b) Any contribution paid by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund;
(c) any travelling allowance or the value of travelling concession;
(d) Any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or
(e) Any gratuity payable on discharge."
A plain reading of the above-quoted clause (vi) of section 2 of the Act indicates that the definition of the term 'wages' given therein is very wide in its scope inasmuch as it includes all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money if the terms of contract of employment, express or implied were fulfilled, be payable. However, it excludes the items mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
9. The Foreign Allowance is not covered by any of the above sub-clauses which exclude the items mentioned therein from the definition of the term "wages". In this view of the matter, the Foreign Allowance is covered by the definition of the term 'wages' as it is capable of being expressed in terms of money.
10. Then it was urged by Mr. Tariq Mehmood that since the amount of claim of Foreign Allowance was a disputed amount, the Authority had no jurisdiction to determine the same.
11. The above contention is also not tenable. The deceased in his application under section 15 of the Act had given the following break-up of his claim of Foreign Allowance:-- Foreign Allowance 18-5-75 31-5-7514 days 192 131.60 1-6-75 30-9-774 months 192768.00 1-10-76 30-9-7812 months 2292,748.00 1-10-77 30-9-7812 months 2773,324.00 1-10-78 31-12-7915 months 3204,800.00 1-1-80 31-12-8012 months 4004,800.00 1-1-81 30-9-819 months 4003,600.00 1-10-81 16-10-81ft16 days 400 240.00 Total Dollars20,411.60 ' The appellants in their written statement had not disputed the basis on which the above calculation was founded. Their main plea was that the deceased was not entitled to the above Foreign Allowance as it becomes payable under letter dated 17-2-1981. Even otherwise if an employer wrongly disputes quantum of wages, the Authority is competent to determine the factum, whether the employee is entitled to claim the amount which, according to him has been wrongly withheld. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of Shaukat Ali and others v.
Islamic Republic of Pakistqn through the General Manager, North-Western Railway, Lahore (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lahore 144), wherein a learned Single Judge, after referring to the case-law of the Indian jurisdiction, concluded as under:-- "Independently of these authorities, I am of the view that the definition of "wages" given in the Act itself makes it perfectly clear that the authority must decide as to what was the remuneration which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work or conduct or other behaviour of the person employed or otherwise to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment. To say that the authority has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Payment of Wages Act, if the wages stated by the petitioners are denied by the employer, will defeat the Act itself and make it absolutely ineffective.
In such a case no sooner an application is made under the Act than in order to have application rejected, all that the employer will have to do will be to deny the wages mentioned in the application. I am, therefore of the opinion that the view taken in Simpalex Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v.
Alla-ud-Din is not sound. I am at the same time in agreement with the observation made by Mahajan, J. In Kishan Chand v. Divisional Superintendent, Lahore Division, North-Western Railway reported in AIR 1948 Lahore 202 that the Act furnishes a summary remedy for wages earned in an office and not paid but it does not pro a remedy for investigation of queries which concern the office in other words, whether a man should be retained in one job or should be reverted to another job. In this case, therefore, I think the Authority could go into the question as to what cadre applies to the petitioners."
12. We are inclined to hold that the Authority under section 15 of the Act I is entitled to go into the question, whether the amount claimed by an employee C under section 15 is entitled to claim the same.
13. It was next contended that the above letter dated 17-2-1991 which relates to the payment of Foreign Allowance cannot be made applicable retrospectively but it can be invoked in aid prospectively.
14. The above contention also appears to be devoid of any force. In this regard it may be pertinent to reproduce paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Quetta's letter addressed to the Chief Personnel Officer, P.R. Headquarters, Lahore, which read as follows:- "Sub: Foreign Allowance to Pakistan Railway Staff, posted abroad in Iranian State Railway from 31- 10-1969.
' A copy of Ministry of Railways, Islamabad letter No,E.II/77-AL/4, dated 13-5-1980 addressed to the Secretary, Railway Board, Lahore (copy endorsed to this office) alongwith its enclosures is sent herewith for information and further action.
2. The following clarifications are, however, furnished in this behalf:--
(i) Prior to 31-10-1969, Mir Jawa/Zahidan Section situated in the Iranian territory was under the control of Pakistan Railway and thus the staff posted on this section were treated like the staff working in Pakistan.
(ii) On and from 31-10-1969, the control of the abovementioned section was handed over to the Iranian State Railway and the staff posted on the section were treated as posted abroad. This fact has already been admitted by the Ministry of Finance as communicated under Railway Board's letter No,E74.PC.1/92, dated 8-4-1978 and your letter No, 831-E/576 (PCC), dated 17-4-1979, wherein it was clarified that staff posted at Mir Jawa/Zahidan was not entitled to dearness allowances of Rs,50 and Rs,25 on account of the fact that they were emplcyed abroad and were in receipt of Foreign Allowance.
(iii) The staff posted on Iranian State Railway at Mir Jawa/Zahidan were treated as posted in Pakistan Mission abroad, hence this was the very reason that such staff were allowed to draw extra Persian Territory Allowance in lieu of Exchange. Compensation Allowance on account of devaluation of Pakistan rupee with effect from 12-5-1972 in terms of Director (Organization),ernment of Pakistan, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Islamabad's letter No, Rule 11/2/70 Pt.VII, dated 17-7-1972 copy forwarded to this office under your letter No, 831- E/576-II(PCC), dated 10-11-1979.
In view of the position indicated above, it is clear that the Pakistan Railway personnel employed at Mir Jawa Railway Station (Iranian Territory) are serving abroad in the same situation in which the staff of Pakistan Mission in Iran are performing their duties. It is, therefore, justified that the Foreign Allowance as required to the staff of Pakistan Mission abroad may also be paid to the Railway Servant at the same rates."
' A perusal of the above letter indicates that the Railway Personnel posted at Mir Jawa/Zahidan were treated as posted in Pakistan Missions abroad and, therefore, they were entitled to Foreign Allowance while they were posted at the above foreign Railway Station. The aforesaid letter does not state that the above Foreign Allowance could be payable prospectively. On the contrary, it contains clarification, meaning thereby that the Railway personnel who were posted at Mir Jawa/Zahidan were entitled to Foreign Allowance like other Pakistani personnel posted abroad in the Pakistan Missions. It is also evident from the above-quoted portion'of the letter that extra Persian Territory Allowance was paid on account of devaluation of Pakistan rupee with effect from 12-5-1972 and not as a substitute for the Foreign Allowance. The above item is different from the foreign Allowance.
15. It was lastly contended that the Authority had granted only 1,000 US Dollars equivalent to Rs,9,900 on the basis of dollar rate at Rs,9.90, but the appellate Court substituted the above amount by US $ 20,411.60 equivalent to Rs,2,04,062 though the respondents had not filed any appeal.
16. We are not impressed by the above contention. As pointed out hereinabove, the appellants had not disputed the quantum of the amount calculated by the deceased reproduced hereinabove.
What they disputed was the entitlement to claim the same. In the absence of any dispute about the quantum of amount, the Authority was bound to allow the amount claimed by the deceased in his application. The appellate Court therefore, having seized of the matter was competent to rectify the above mistake. It appears that the appellants have not paid till today the above amount. The deceased might have been entitled to claim the payment of Pakistani currency equivalent to US Dollar 20,411.60 on the date of payment on the basis of the rate of U.S. Dollar. However, we have not examined the above aspect.
17. It was also urged by Mr. Tariq Mehmood that the Authority or the appellate Court or the High Court has not dilated upon the question of limitation.
18. Leave was not granted on the question of limitation. Even otherwise, it is not befitting for the appellants to deny the claim of a deceased employee on the technical ground of limitation if he was otherwise entitled to it. The appellants, as the employer of the deceased, are expected to provide help to the legal heirs of the deceased and not to denyeheir claim on the ground of limitation, which has been found to be genuine by the competent forum.
19. The upshot of the above discussion is that the above appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The appellants are directed to pay the above amount to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of intimation of this judgment from the office of this Court. The office is directed to send the above intimation to the appellants under registered acknowledgement due within a week.