' This was a petition under section 51(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with rule 79 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973 for the computation of money and other benefits by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in favour of the petitioners in the light of its judgment against the respondents announced on 18-12-1976 at Lahore and the payment of these benefits and the amount to the petitioners by the respondents.
5. The services of M. M. Ashraf, Arshad Ali Khan, and Syed Asif Ali, petitioners were retrenched on 1- 3-76, while the services of Abdul Jabbar Amin were retrenched on 8-3-1976. They filed a joint petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for their re-instatement with back benefits before the Labour Court, which dismissed the same. I, vide my order dated 18-12- 1976, accepted the appeal and directed that the petitioners be re-instated with back wages.
Against that order the respondents went up in a writ petition to the High Court, which was dismissed on 19-9-1977. After that the respondents filed a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court. The following order dated 13-12-1977 was passed :- "To be heard alonghwith the petition for leave to appeal, which should be fixed within two months."
3. The Supreme Court did not stay the proceedings. Even special leave to appeal was not granted, but directed that the petition should be fixed within two months for hearing as to whether special leave to appeal would be granted or not.
4. The petitioners filed the instant petition on 31-3-1977 before the Tribunal. The entitlement was detailed in paragraph 11 of Annexure '0'. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 11 relating to Cost of Living Allowance was not claimed. Before filing the instant petition, the petitioners had sent a registered notice A. D. On 24-12-1976 to the respondents, which was received by the respondents on 27-12-76.
The postal receipts are Annexures 'C', 'D', `E' and 'F'. No reply was received. Before the Tribunal, after some adjournments, arguments were heard on 11-6-1977 on the petition of both the parties and I, vide my order of even date, accepted the petition and held that the petitioners could recover the back wages as arrears of land revenue.
5. On 22-6-1977 the petitioners filed another application for computation of back wages admissible to them upto August, 1977. A copy of the application was handed-over to the counsel for the respondents. The respondents were directed to file the reply statement on 9-7-1977 but no reply was filed on that date. The case was adjourned to 17-8-1977, on which date the petitioners filed another application to bring the claim up to December, 1977. The respondents were directed to file reply on 1-9-1977, on which date the case was adjourned sine die because of the stay order dated 30-8-1977 issued by the High Court in the writ petition. On 19-9-1977 the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents.
6. On 25-9-1977 the petitioners filed another application for attachment before judgment. It came up for hearing on 26-9-1977. On 5-10-1977 the counsel for the respondents was present and the case was adjourned to 17-11-1977 for submitting the reply to that application. On 17-11-1977 neither the respondents nor their counsel appeared and a notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents for 12-12-1977, on which date the respondents' counsel was present. The case was then adjourned to 11-1-1978, on which date the respondent did not file the reply to the petition as well as the applications filed by the petitioners. On that date, however, the petitioners filed an amended application for computation of back wages up to 28-1-1978. The copy of that application was handed over to the counsel for the respondents. The case was adjourned to 2-2-1978 and again adjourned to 9-2-1978 at the request of the counsel for the respondents on payment of Rs. 1, 000 as costs. On 9-2-1978 the costs were paid to the representative of the petitioners and arguments were heard of both the parties and the case was adjourned to 15-2-1978 for orders. No replies were filed to all the above applications.
7. It may be mentioned here that the name of respondent No. 2 mentioned in the petition was struck off by me vide order dated 5-10-1977.
8. At this stage it will be feasible to reproduce section 51 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under :- "51. Recovery of money due from an Employer under a Settlement or award.-(1) Any money due from an employer under a settlement, or under an Award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand if, upon the application of the person entitled to the money, the Labour Court, so directs.
(2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, under a settlement or under an Award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal, which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the amount at which such benefit shall be computed may, subject to the rules made under this Ordinance, be determined and recovered as provided for in subsection
(1) and paid to the workman concerned within a specified date."
' Now the point for determination is as to what amount would be include in the expression 'wages'.
The said expression is not defined under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, therefore, one has to look into the definition of wages given in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Section 2(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 reads as under :- " '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 capable, 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.
9. From the perusal of the record I find that the claim of the petitioners up to 28-1-1978 comes to Rs.
3,96,426 as mentioned in the Schedule attached with the application dated 11-1-1978. In that application it is also mentioned that the amount recoverable monthly comes to Rs. 26,936. The amount included the following items : -
(1) Unpaid wages up to 28-2-1978.
(2) 50 per cent. Of basic pay as house rent.
(3) Total leave entitlements.
(4) Statutory bonus, which includes 50 per cant of house rent.
10. In view of the definition of wages mentioned above, the value of any house accommodation cannot be included in the term 'wages'. Therefore, the amount claimed by the petitioners on account of house rent cannot be allowed. In the Schedule Rs. 96,750 were claimed as house rent and Rs. 3,593 were claimed on account of 50 per cent. House rent as statutory bonus. The total comes to Rs. 1,00,343. Deducting this amount from the total sum of Rs. 3,96,426 comes to Rs.
2,96,083. Only this amount is recoverable from the respondents.
11. 1, accordingly, accept the petition and hold that the petitioners are entitled to the sum of Rs.
2,96,083 recoverable from the respondents as arrears of land revenue. The respondents are, therefore, directed to make the payment of the said amount within fifteen days from today to Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, holder of special power-of-attorney before this Tribunal.