1984 PLC(CS) 1724

The order, dated 7 th March, 1984 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has been challenged by Akhtar Hussain Shah and Abdur Rauf (hereinafter to be described as the petitioners). Nazar Hussain (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) has in his revision challenged the order, dated 7th March, 1984 passed by the learned Presi ding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby partly accepting the appeal of the petitioners the direction to pay notice‑pay to the respondent vas set aside. As both the revisions arise from the same petition lodged under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The respondent claims pay for the months of January, February, and March, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 950 per mensem and one month's pay to lieu of notice of termination of services. The learned Authority allowed the petition in toto but on appeal the learned Labour Court No. 7 held that the respondent was not entitled to notice‑pay as Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the pay of the respondent being more than Rs. 1,000, the Payment of Wages Act is not applicable and thus the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction. But the pay of the respondent is Rs. 950 per mensem. The petitioners claim that the pay of the respondent is Rs. 1,200 but the plea has not been substantiated. It has been argued that even if the basic pay is admitted to be Rs. 950, it exceeds by adding to it the monthly commission. No doubt commission is part of wages and is covered by the definition of Wages but this commission not being fixed cannot be said to permanently increase the pay to an amount exceeding Rs. 1,000. Commission is allowed when the vehicle remains on road. During rest days and when the vehicle goes out of order, it remains off the road and thus there being no income, no commission is paid. The learned courts below, therefore, have rightly said that the commission is not to be considered while deciding if the pay exceeds Rs. 1,000 per mensem. Admittedly, the wages for the months of January to March, 1980 were not paid, so the courts below rightly issued the direction to pay the same.

4. The revision of the respondent too has no force. He said that besides him there were two more drivers. The total number of employees being three only, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 has rightly been held to be not applicable by the learned lower appellate Court. So the respon dent has no guaranteed right to claim one month's pay in lieu of notice of termination of services.

5. As a result, both the revisions fail and are hereby dismissed.

A. E.

Revisions dismissed.