DECISION This appeal of one Bakht Rawan has a long history.
Bakht Rawan was dismissed from service by M/s. Sandoz Pakistan Limited, the respondents. He filed grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the petition, and reinstated him with back benefits. The employers Sandoz Pakistan Limited preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Bakht Rawan being a Chowkidar was not a workman under Standing Orders Ordinance. The matter then went before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal in the Constitution petition and held that this was a mixed issue of law and fact and remanded the case for evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the evidence and again held that Bakht Rawan was a Chowkidar was not a workman. The matter went back to the High Court in Constitution petition. The High Court again held that Chowkidar was a workman on the evidence recorded by the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal for decision on merits. Against that order of the High Court the employers Sandoz Pakistan Limited preferred appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the deposit of the back benefits amounting to Rs.1,05,180 with the Nazir of the High Court. The Supreme Court decided the appeal and held that the decision of the High Court was correct and Bakht Rawan was a worker.
Incidentally the order regarding payment of Rs.1,05,180 was not made. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal gave the decision that Bakht Rawan was a workman entitled to reinstatement and back benefits. The employers instead of reinstatement of Bakht Rawan retired him from service as he had meanwhile attained the age of superannuation. The dues payablc to Bakht Rawan were settled by Sandoz Pakistan Limited as Rs.3,13,541. From this gross amount, Provident Fund contribution, income--tax and amount paid into the High Court were deducted. The net amount payable was shown to be Rs. 1,59,533. Bakht Rawan disputed the deduction on amount of income-tax and the amount paid by the 'employers into the High Court and he filed petition before the Labour Court. He also claimed one month's pay in lieu of notice as notice pay for retirement holding that retirement was equivalent to termination. The Labour Court held that deduction of income-tax was not called for as the salary of Bakht Rawan was not liable to income- tax. There was no dispute about Provident Fund contribution deduction. According to the Labour Court the claim for notice pay after retirement did not lie. Regarding amount paid by the employers into High Court for filing appeal before the Supreme Court the Labour Court was silent and no order was passed.
2. Mr. Muhammad Humayun agrees not to deduct, the amount of income-tax as held by the Labour Court. Regarding the deposit with the Nazir of the High Court by the employers. Mr. Humayun has no objection to its payment to the appellant but says that the Chowkidar appellant, should move the Supreme Court for orders for the release of this amount. The workman cannot be burdened with the task of collecting the dues payable to the respondent Sandoz Pakistan Limited.
The total amount is payable by the Sandoz Pakistan Limited minus the Provident Fund contribution.
There is no A liability on the employers to pay notice pay of one month on retirement. Regarding the amount deposited in the High Court the employers cannot deduct it from the dues of the worker. It is for them to collect refund of this amount under orders of the Supreme Court. The appellant is; therefore, entitled to Rs.3,13,541 less Provident Fund deduction of Rs.13,785. The respondent Sandoz Pakistan Limited shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days.
3. The appeal is disposed of in terms of these orders.