1988 PLC(CS) 689

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT,

Citation1988 PLC(CS) 689

CourtPunjab Labour Appellate Tribunal

Case No.P2tition No.LHR‑563 of 1987

Date1988-01-26

Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE

ResultRevision dismissed

This is a revision reporting that the decision dated 18‑7‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.‑7, Gujranwala whereby the order of the Authority dated 17‑11‑1986 was confirmed is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts are that Muhammad Ashraf was Ex. Interlocking Misty, Pakistan Railways, Wazirabad and was retired from service and died during the period of L.P.R. His widow the respondent claimed gratuity to the tune of, Rs.40,000. The petition was opposed by the petitioner and the jurisdiction of the Authority was inter‑alia attacked. The learned Authority decided that it had jurisdiction and accepted the claim to the extent of Rs.23,360. The learned lower Court has upheld the order of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the application for gratuity was not given by the deceased within one month of the retirement, therefore, he was not entitled to the same. He has cited Rule 5 of the Personnel Manual Vol‑I. I do not find any force in the argument. The word "may" used and not 'shall' in the Rule where it says that the application be given within one month. The provision not being mandatory the petition could be given even beyond one month. Next point argued by the learned counsel is that the Payment of Wages Act is not applicable where the claim is of gratuity. This argument too has no force. According to the amended section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for delay in payment of gratuity application under the said section can be made and the Authority has jurisdiction. Amended section 15(2) reads as under:‑

"Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person or any payment of wages (or payment of dues relating to provident fund or gratuity payable under any law) has been delayed such person himself or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf or any Inspector under this Act or any other person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under subsection (1) may apply to such authority for direction under subsection (3).

It is thus, clear that by adding the words "or non‑payment of dues relating to provident fund or gratutity payable under any law", the Authority was invested with the powers to decide petitions in which the payment of gratuity had been delayed. So the learned lowers Court below rightly held that the Authority has jurisdiction.

4. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.