Pakistan Case LawSHAUKAT ALI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI
This appeal arises out of a claim for wages and compensation filed by a railway employee before the Payment of Wages Authority following an industrial accident and subsequent absence from duty. The core legal question was whether the employee was entitled to wages for the entire period of absence up to October 1983, or only until the date he ceased to be in service under Fundamental Rule 18 due to continuous absence exceeding five years. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal held that once the employee ceased to be in service under the applicable rule and the order was duly communicated, no claim for wages remained for the period thereafter. The application under section 348(3-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was dismissed, upholding the Labour Court's decision restricting wages to the period prior to the cessation of service. The court laid down the principle that an employee whose service has automatically ceased due to prolonged absence under Fundamental Rule 18 is not entitled to claim wages for any period subsequent to such cessation and communication of the order.
- Is an employee entitled to claim wages for the period after the automatic cessation of service due to continuous absence under Fundamental Rule 18?
- Does a previous judicial decision concerning a distinct period of absence apply to bar an employer from raising a subsequent cessation of service plea?
DECISION
The circumstances culminating in this appeal are as follows:
2.The applicant was a Fitter with the Railway Department. On 8‑1‑1977 while on duty at the Railway Workshop at Karachi, he met with an accident which had caused injuries to his left shoulder. Shorn of all details suffice it to say that he had filed a claim before the Payment of Wages Authority for his arrears c, f pay from 1‑4‑1977 to 31‑7‑1981. He was awarded a sum of Rs.25,473 and Rs.l0 further by way of compensation. As the appeal had also failed, a writ petition had been filed by the Department which came to be dismissed on 19‑5‑198'7.
3.The applicant had filed a second claim also in the sum of Rs.25,110 and a compensation of Rs.10 from 1‑8‑1981 upto 31‑10‑1983 which came to be allowed in full by the Payment of Wages Authority.
4.The matter was taken in appeal before Labour Court and the order was that he was entitled to the wages from 1‑8‑1981 to 25‑4‑1982 i.e. 9 months out of 27 months only, because an order had been communicated to the informant by the authorities under F.R. 18 on that date, that as he had remained absent from his duty for a period of five years, therefore he had ceased to be in service automatically, with effect from 25‑4‑1982.
5.The learned Payment of Wages Authority had relied upon the judgment of the High Court in this very case in the earlier round, but as rightly pointed Out by the Labour Court in appeal, it did not apply in the instant case. The contention of the Department in the earlier case was only that his absence was unauthorised from 31‑3‑1977 to 26‑9‑1977. It was observed therein as follows:‑‑
"Since admittedly the termination of the service of respondent No. 3 has taken place much later the same cannot be taken into consideration as ground of challenge to the order passed by the Darned Authority under the Payment of Wages or the learned Labour Court that such termination of service took effect retrospectively i.e., 5‑4‑1977."
6.The record shows that in the instant case a specific plea had been taken ands the order of cessation from service had also been produced in evidence. Once the applicant was no more in the employment of the Department and the order had been duly communicated to him, he had no claim left for his wages thereafter.
7.Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned Representative for the Applicant did not challenge 'the vires of the aforesaid Rule.
8.As a result there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order' and the application under section 348(3‑A), I.R.O. stands dismissed.
H.B.T./21: 36/Lb.S Application dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Agha Ali Hyder560 judgments