MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD.

ORDER

The petitioner was employer as a Surveyor by Sui Northern Gas Pipe lines Limited (the respondent), which is an essential service. His services were terminated on 23-8-1972, without notice by the respondent, as they were no longer required by the latter. The petitioner received an amount of Rs. 5,880.18 which according to the respondent's calculations wag payable to him by the respondent. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent, the petitioner moved the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for has re-instatement, but ultimately his application was dismissed on the ground that the respondent was an essential service and the jurisdiction of the - Courts under the 1 R.O. was barred. The petitioner has finally filed the instant application before the Commission which falls within the purview of section 6 of the Essential Services Act, inter alia praying for his re-instatement and payment of Rs. 2098.45 which according to the petitioner's calculations are still due to him from the respondent.

2. As far as the question of re-instatement is concerned a copy of the letter (marked as R/1) has been flea by the respondent, which shows that the services of the petitioner were no longer, required by the respondent. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has filed the vacant post in an "unfair and objectionable way." He however failed to substantiate it as he has produced no evidence. The petitioner has filed an "affidavit" in support of his allegations but the same not having been attested cannot lie considered. This leaves us only with the second prayer of the petitioner in respect of his dues.

3. The petitioner has filed a photostat copy of the statement of Accounts (Exh. G) received by him from the respondent which lists the items, showing the amount payable against each one of them, and the total of all the items shown by the respondent is Rs. 6,080.18. After deducting an amount of Rs. 200 which was recoverable from petitioner, a figure of Rs. 5,880.18 has been shown by the respondent as payable to the petitioner, which has been disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner bas filed his own statement of accounts (Exh. D) which shows a figure of Rs. 8.178.63 payable to him against items listed in the respondent's statement of accounts (Exh. G). After deducting an amount of Rs. 6,080.18 from the above figure, the petitioner has shown a figure of Rs. 2,098.45 as still due and payable from the res pondent. The petitioner has disputed the following items in the respondent's statement of account (Exh. G)

(1) One month's notice pay,

(2) Wages for 66 days earned leave.

(3) Wages for 29 days off, and

(4) 72-1/2 days' pay at gratuity etc.

The contention of the petitioner is that while calculating the gross monthly wages, the Project and Field Party Allowance which were being paid to the petitioner had wrongly been excluded from his basic pay. According to the petitioner his average monthly wages at the time of leaving the respondent's service were Rs 985.00 which were calculated on the basis of wages earned during the last three months. The petitioner has filed the salary slips pertaining to those months (Exhs. `A' & `B') which shows that the gross pay received by him including the field allowance during the months of May, June and July, 1972, was Rs. 98.500. 986.29 and 825.00 respectively. Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent has conceded that if the Field Party Allowance is added in the basic monthly salary, then the calculations made by the petitioner are correct. He has however contended that the payment of Wages Act does not permit the inclusion of Field Party Allowance to the wages. Now according to the definition of the word wages in the Payment of Wages Act, it 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 payable, whether con ditionally 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 entitled on him by the nature of his employment ; or

(e) any gratuity payable on discharge.

According to the above definition of the term "wages" in section 2, clause (vi) d, "any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment" is of course excluded from "wages", but there is nothing to show that the surfs of Rs. 200 which was being paid to the petitioner every month alongwith his wages, should fall within the mischief of the above said clause (vi) d. On the contrary, the "Service Certificate" (Exh. J) shows that the said amount of Rs. 200 was part of the petitioner's basic gross salary. I therefore cannot exclude the Field Allowance earned by the petitioner from his wages. According to me it was part of his wages and must he included therein. if that is the case, then the petitioner will be entitled to receive the difference of Rs. Z098.4.) as claimed by him from the respondent. I accordingly direct that the respondent may pay the said amount of Its 2,098.45 to the petitioner.