SAIN KHAN Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER THIRD SINDH LABOUR COURT KARACHI

DECISION

The applicant was working as a Driver with the respondent No.3 and having attained the age of superannuation, he was retired from service in 1986. He had preferred certain claims in the sum of Rs.56, 977.13 with the Employers. Out of this amount he was given Rs.18, 351.26. He had, therefore, filed a claim under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before 'the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the sum of Rs.38, 625.87 which was .duly contested. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act disallowed the last two items namely claims in regard to festival holidays and the difference of gratuity. The gratuity in item No. 1 was allowed in the sum of Rs.3, 412.14 only. The rest of the items were allowed in full.

2. Aggrieved by this order the respondent No. 3 had taken an appeal before the Labour Court. The learned Presiding Officer disallowed the gratuity, the claims in regard to Notice Pay and Annual Leave but affirmed the claim only in regard to the unavailed leave to the extent of Rs.2, 938. This has resulted in the present Revision Application.

3. In a Revision Application the canvass is very limited as only the correctness, legality or propriety of an order may be examined. Under the circumstances the only misapprehension in the impugned order to my mind pertains to the gratuity.

4. Admittedly there was a settlement arrived at between the parties on 19‑6‑1984. It reads as under:‑

"Gratuity: The management has agreed to grant seven (7) days additional gratuity per year bringing it to 37 days (thirty‑seven days) for employees, governed by SRTC Rules and seven days additional Gratuity per year bringing it to 27 (twenty‑seven days) to employees, governed by KTC Rules, on the basic pay only, which will be effective from the date of signing of the settlement:"

4‑A. The learned Presiding Officer in spite of having found that the applicant was entitled to the gratuity at the rate of 37 days per year struck it down, with the following observation: "as such, the benefits in respect of Gratuity, given to the workers under the settlement, which is more favourable than the benefits under the law, as such, the former will prevail over the latter. Thus the learned Authority, while granting the difference treating the index pay in the wages, has erred in law."

5. I am afraid I cannot agree with this part of the order as the settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be said to be against public policy, or tainted with illegality.

6. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sum of Rs.3, 412.14 under that head was disallowed without any proper reason. The rest of the claim pressed here is rejected.

7. In the result the applicant would be entitled to sum of Rs.3, 412.14 and Rs.2, 938 which has remained untouched in appeal, making a total of Rs.6, 350.14. After making payment of the aforesaid claim money to the applicant, the remaining amount will be refunded to the employer i.e. the respondent No. 3. The revision application accordingly stands partly allowed.

H.B.T./2205/Lb.S Order, accordingly.