SADDAR-UD-DIN Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

This is a revision reporting that the order dated 5‑1‑1989 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan is wrong and improper.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner was promoted as commercial supervisor booking somewhere in 1977 but he refused on the plea that his children were getting education at Bahawalnagar. It was ordered that his name be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. Thereafter, the substantive post of the petitioner was upgraded to the lust of commercial supervisor booking in Scale No. 11. However, the petitioner was not regularly promoted to the said post. But, he was made to work as commercial supervisor booking in officiating capacity. He brought an application under section 15 ( 2) of the Payment of Wages Act claiming wages in Scale No. 11 against the post of Commercial Supervisor. The said petition failed and the appeal brought by the petitioner also met the same fate. The petitioner previously had come in revision and the case was remanded but his petition has again been dismissed. The question to be seen is whether the petitioner was regularly promoted as Commercial Supervisor in Scale No. 11 and the pay of that post was wrongly not paid to him. If it is proved so, then it would be a case of deduction. But there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was ever regularly promoted to the post mentioned above. Needless to say that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction only where there is a case of deduction or delayed wages. The Authority cannot decide the question of entitlement to a post to a scale. It has been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was the senior most and had refused promotion on account of the fact that his children were getting education, he was entitled to the post of Commercial A Supervisor after the same was upgraded. This question could have been considered if an application under section 25‑A had been lodged and it had been otherwise competent. Such a plea cannot be raised before this Court during the present proceedings, because I am not sitting in appeal over any order of Labour Court passed either under section 25‑A or, section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act and since the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 allows the Labour Courts to exercise those powers also which have been given to them by other laws, therefore, the order passed by the learned lower appellate Court has been deemed to have been passed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thus such orders can be challenged in revision. The question of entitlement, therefore, cannot be considered. The documents Exhs. P‑8, P‑9 and like such other documents, no doubt, show that the petitioner is described as Commercial Supervisor in them but this is not enough unless an order of regular promotion to the said post had been brought on the record. In the service book of the petitioner he has been shown as officiating commercial Supervisor. Since he has not been regularly promoted to the said post, it cannot be said that non‑payment of wages in Scale No. 11 amounts to deduction of wages. He is entitled only to the officiating allowance since he is working in B officiating capacity. The learned Courts below were competent to issue the direction to the effect that officiating allowance be paid to the petitioner for the period he worked as Commercial Supervisor.

4. As a result, the revision is partly accepted and setting aside the orders of the learned Courts below, the respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner officiating allowance under the rules for the period he worked as Commercial Supervisor.

H.B.T./658/Lb. P Petition partly accepted.