' Punjab Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner, through the tiling of this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has challenged the judgment dated 21-12-1985, passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Lahore, (hereinafter called as Tribunal), whereby the learned Tribunal while dismissing the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, held that the gratuity payable to the respondent No,1 has rightly been calculated, by the two forums below, thereby including house rent allowance; dearness allowance, conveyance allowance and fixed medical allowance.
2. Facts, in brief, culminating to the filing of the present writ petition are that respondent No,1 was an employee under the petitioner, he was retired and paid certain amount of gratuity on his retirement, which was calculated on the basis of his basic pay under the rules framed by the petitioner. Respondent No,1, being 'dissatisfied from the said mode of calculation, filed application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before the Authority, created under the said Act alleging therein that his gratuity for 26 years, payable to him," comes to Rs,34,315 on the basis of his wages drawn by him before retirement and as he has been paid a deficient amount of Rs,15,364, therefore, the said amount may be ordered to be paid to him. The aforestated petition was contested by the petitioner, evidence was recorded and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act accepted the same and directed the petitioner to pay the balance gratuity amounting to Rs,15,364 to respondent No,1 vide order dated 14-10-1984. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Court, Faisalabad, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 20-2-1985, which order was further assailed, by the petitioner, through filing a revision petition before the Tribunal, which too met the same fate" and was dismissed vide judgment dated 21-12-1985. Still not satisfied, the petitioner challenged the latter judgment passed by Tribunal by way of instituting the present Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the gratuity rules for the employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation have been framed, whereunder the word "pay" is used, which has been defined to mean as "basic pay" only, In this perspective. He contended that as the amount of gratuity payable to respondent No,1 was determined and calculated according to his basic pay, in accordance with the Gratuity Rules, therefore, respondent No,1 is not entitled to the amount claimed, as such all the orders favouring respondent No,i, which have been merged into the final judgment of the Tribunal, are not sustainable in law. Conversely the learned counsel for respondent No,1 has supported all the orders passed by different forums by submitting that respondent No,1 is entitled to the payment of the amount of gratuity as per the Standing Orders Ordinance (VI of 1968).
4. As regards the 1st contention of the learned counsel regarding the gratuity rules, the same is misplaced and devoid of any force. The Gratuity Rules, on which the petitioner is placing reliance, are only applicable to those employees of an establishment, to which the provisions of Standing A Orders Ordinance, 1968, are not attracted. Section 1 (4)(c) of Standing Orders Ordinance. 1968, specifically envisages that the provisions of the said Standing Orders Ordinance shall be applicable to those establishments, wherein the number of employees is 20 or more. Admittedly, the petitioner-Corporation is an establishment, who has its employees far more than the number given in the said Ordinance. Needless to mention that this is not even the stance of the petitioner, taken in the written reply, that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, are not attracted, as the employees of the petitioner-Corporation are less 20. I am of the considered view that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applicable in the present case and, therefore. The "gratuity is to be calculated 8 and paid to the respondent No,1 according to the provisions of Standing Order 12(6).
5. Now the questions, which have arisen for determination are as to whether cost of living allowance, house rent allowance, conveyance allowance and medical allowance are included in the term "wages" and secondly as to whether respondent No,1 is entitled for the payment of the amount of gratuity on the basis of wages admissible to him during the last 12 months of his service.
It has been held in General Manager, Pakistan Railways and another v. Anwar Ahmed Khan and others (1995 PLC (C.S.) 627) that the term wages is very wide in its scope and includes all remunerations capable of being expressed in terms of money, if the terms of contract of employment, expressed or implied were fulfilled.
6. It has further been held in Zain Packaging Industries Limited Karachi v. Abdul Rashid and 2 others (1994 SCMR 2222) as under:-- ' The word 'wages' therefore, has to be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. In this ordinary sense 'wages' would include all payments made to a workman by his employer in a regular and permanent basis periodically in lieu of the services. As a corollary, therefore, payments made to a workman which are contingent in nature would not form part of the 'wages'. Therefore, in order to determine whether a particular payment received by a workman is part of his wages, it is necessary to ascertain the nature of such payment. The fact that the payment made to a workman is described as an allowance of one kind or the other is not a determinative factor to make such payment or to exclude it from being treated as part of the 'wages'. If a workman is receiving certain payments on a permanent basis, regularly, not dependent upon any contingency or existence or otherwise of certain conditions, then notwithstanding the fact that the such payments may be described as an allowance of some kind, will be treated as part of his wages.
7. In the above perspective, if the case of respondent No,1 is tested on the touchstone and the parameters laid down by the aforesaid law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the obvious conclusion would be that the gratuity amount was to be calculated on the basis of all the payments, made on permanent basis and regularly, to respondent No,1 by his employer irrespective of the fact that those were termed as allowance etc. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that all the allowances given to the respondent No,1 are included in the terms "wages" and that he is entitled for the payment of amount of gratuity on the basis of wages admissible to. Him during the last 12 months of service. Thus, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the gratuity amount is to be calculated on the basis of basic pay also falls to the ground.
8. The learned Tribunal taking into account all the facts and relevant law on the subject rightly came to the conclusion that respondent No,1 is entitled to the balance gratuity amount, which was illegally withheld by the petitioner on erroneous notions.
9. Before parting with the judgment I feel necessary to observe at this juncture that the balance gratuity amount was withheld, apparently, only to satisfy the age of some top notches of the petitioner-Corporation. Who were not prepared to part with this paltry amount and to give it to their employee, who served the corporation for more than 26 years. Rather those high-ups thought it fit, in the interest of the petitioner-Corporation to incur heavy expenses on litigation starting right from the bottom and upto this Court. The petitioner-Corporation must have spent more than Rs,50, 000 in litigation in each case. But they have not considered it expedient to give petty amount of Rs, 15,000 to the poor worker, who was retired - from service on 29-12-1986 and spent rest of his life in litigation fighting for his rights only to get an amount to Rs,15,000. This state of affairs is alarming, as the public money has been wasted in such a reckless manner, which the resulted into closing down of petitioner's-Corporation.
10. In view of the above narrative, judgment dated 21-12-1985, passed by the learned Tribunal, wherein all the orders passed by the lower forums have since been merged, is just, legal unexceptionable and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which is discretionary and equitable.
' For the foregoing reasons and conclusion, I see no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed with costs.