REHMAN Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST

DECISION

These are two separate revision applications filed by each applicant against common impugned order, dated 22‑12‑1983, passed by the learned Sind Labour Court No.V Karachi, who as an Appellate Authority had granted only a payment of Rs.23,250.00 as wages to each of the applicants herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that both the applicants workmen filed two separate applications before the learned Authority under Payment of Wages Act wherein each of them have claimed, recovery of a sum of Rs.44,500 on account of Earned wages for the period from 11‑5‑1976 to 18‑7‑1981 with an amount of Rs.3,000 by way of compensation, Thereon, the learned authority had granted to each of the applicant, an amount of Rs.23,250.00 as wages plus Rs.4,000.00 as compensation, making a total of Rs.27,250.00 to each of the applicants. Being aggrieved with this order of the learned Authority, the management of Karachi Port had filed appeal before the Sind Labour Court No. V Karachi, which has passed the impugned order.

3. The case of the Karachi Port Trust before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, was that claim of the applicants workmen was time‑barred and that the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, were not applicable to the K.P.T. and that the services of the applicants were terminated on the 11th of May, 1976, when, they were caught red‑handed by police for theft of uniform from Manora workshop, where they had been working and on their acquittal in the criminal case, they were re‑employed with effect from 16‑7‑1981 and that as they were being 'Daily wages' workers, they 'Were not paid for the period they remained out of employment on the principle of no work no pay, therefore, their applications before the learned Authority were not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Authority overruled the contentions of the K.P.T. and granted the applications of the applicants workmen. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had maintained the order of the learned Authority but did not allow the applicants an amount of Rs.4,000.00 as compensation to each of them, hence, the present revision applications under section 38(3a) of the I.R.0.1969.

4. I have heard Anwar Ali, one of the applicants and Mr. Imtiaz Chatta, the learned Advocate for the management of Karachi Port Trust and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It was submitted by the applicant that the learned Appellate Court had wrongly 'overlooked the law and held the applicants as Daily wages' workers and not entitled to the wages for the suspension period, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the order of the learned Authority, dated 15‑5‑1983 be maintained as lawful. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmad Chatta, the learned Advocate for the management of K.P.T. has argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application against the order passed under Payment of Wages Act. I would, therefore, hold that these two revision applications are not maintainable. The impugned order of the learned Labour A Court is maintained.

5. For the above reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. These two revision applications are disposed of accordingly.

A. E. /971/ Lb. S

Revisions dismissed.