DECISION ' This appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The respondents filed an application under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, against the appellants, claiming the payment of delayed/withheld Project Allowance from the dates of theirs appointment. According to them they are entitled to Project allowance like other employees of M. P.
0., WAPDA, Jamahoro, now MCPL. The appellants disputed the claim of the respondents on the main ground that the staff members of hospital and dispensary are not entitled to any Project allowance in view of the decision taken by the General Manager, M. P.
0. WAPDA., Lahore in office order dated 30.4-1960. Some legal pleas about the maintainability of the application, out of which this appeal has arisen, were also raised.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad, framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether project allowance is included In the definition of wages.
(2) Whether the applicants were/are entitled for the project allowance.
(3) Whether the Company is liable for payment of liabilities of WAPDA period to applicants.
(4) Whether the application is time barred.
(5) What should the order be.
4. Respondent Abdul Majeed tendered his evidence by means of an affidavit dated 21-6-1975. The appellants, however, did not adduce any evidence except certain o co orders which are placed on the record.
5. On the basis of the evidence which is available on record, the learned Authority decided all the main issues against the appellants and consequently allowed the said application vide order dated 19-5.1977. Who operative part of this order Is as follows "(1) Mr. Abdul Wahid, Dresser.-He should be paid a sum of Rs, 6,160, the withheld amount of project allowance for the period from August, 1962 to May 1975 at the rate of Rs, 40 per month alongwith a sum of Rs, 1,000 as compensation totalling to Re. 7,160 (Re. Seven thousand one hundred and sixty only).
(2) Mr. Abdul Majeed, Dresser.-He should be paid a sum of Re. 5,680, the withheld amount of project allowance for the period from August, 1963 to May, 1975 at the rate of Rs, 40 per month alongwith a sum of Rs 1,000 as compensation totalling to Rs, 6,680 (Rs, six thousand six hundred eighty only).
(3) Mr. Shwnsuddin, Compounder.-He should bo paid a sum of Re. 1,040 the withheld amount of project allowance for the period from April, 1973 to May, 19'S, at the rata of Rs, 40 per month alongwith a sum of Rs, 500 as compensation totalling to Re. 1,540 (Re. One thousand five hundred forty only).
(4) Mr. Abdul Hakeem, Store-keeper.-He should be paid a sum of Rs, 560, the withhold amount of project allowance for the period from April, 1974 to May, 1975 at the rate of Re. 40 p. m. Alongwith a sum of Rs, 500 as compensation totalling to Re. 1060 (Rs, one thousand sixty only."
6. This order is the subject-matter of the present appeal.
7. I have gone through the record of this case very carefully. I have also perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.
8. The "wages" as defined by section 2(vi) of the Payments of Wages Act, 1936, include all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable, whether conditionally upon the regular attendance, good work 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.
This definition is very wide and it includes the Project Allowance also. The case reported Mohammad Bashir v. Managing Director, Su, Northern Gas Pipe Lines Limited, is relevant in this context.
9. Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim Soomro the learned counsel for the appellant further challenged the maintainability of this application on the ground that the joint application was not competent in respect of 4 respondents. The answer to this contention is, however, provided D5 section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which lays down that a B single application in respect of claims from unpaid group is competent.
10. The plea of Limitation raised on behalf of the appellant is again devoid of any force. The claim was continuous liability of the appellant and the respondent had a recurring cause of action.
11. On merits, the respondents have a strong case. The office memorandum dated 14-1-1960 issued by the Chief Engineer (Water) WAPDA, Lahore, is very clear in this regard and it reads as follows :- "The staff of Machinery Pool Organization stationed at sites of the various Projects such as Guddu Barrage, Kotri Barrage (Jamshoro), Mangle and Tarbela Dam Project, are entitled to the Project allowance at the rates sanctioned by the Authority for that Project.
12. The office order dated 18-12-1964 further confirms this position, in which it was clearly mentioned that the payment of the Project allowance to M. P.
0. Staff working at Ghulam Muhammad Barrage has been regularized.
13. The appellants have discriminated the respondents on the basis of office order dated 30-4-1960 which excludes the Chief or Medical Officer and Hospital staff from the category of the officials who1 were entitled to get Project allowance. This office order was issued in continuation of office order dated 22-10-1959, in which the name of Kotri Barrage/Ghulam Muhammad Barrage was not included and therefore the staff members of the D Hospital posted at Jamshoro are not covered by the office order dated 30-4-1960 referred to above.
14. It may be re-called that in the year 1968 this Project allowance was discontinued to the members of staff working at Kotri Barrage. This action was challenged before a competent Civil Court, which was not contested and the Manager Mechanical, M. P.
0. WAPDA , Lahore, in his letter dated 30-3-1968 addressed to Workshop Officer, Jamshoro, made the whole position clear.
15. The appellants came into being as a separate entity with effect from 1-94974. All the outstanding dues of its predecessor Organization were/ate to be paid by the appellants, in terms of the agreement between E its Union dated 21-104974. The appellants therefore cannot avoid this liability on any score.
16. In the result I find no merits in the appeal which Is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. 1976 P L G 505