Pakistan Case LawDIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI Versus AFTAB ALI
This is a revisional application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by Pakistan Railways against an order of the Sindh Labour Court upholding the grant of wages and compensation to the respondent employee under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The core legal question was whether an employee suspended and later reinstated without punishment is entitled to the remaining 50% of wages and whether compensation can be awarded alongside. The Tribunal held, following precedent of the High Court of Sindh, that while the employee is entitled to the unpaid remaining 50% of monthly wages for the suspension period, he is not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court, and directed Pakistan Railways to pay only the remaining 50% wages amounting to Rs.1,004 while denying any other amount. The Tribunal laid down the principle that an employee reinstated after suspension without punishment is entitled to unpaid wages but not to additional compensation.
- Whether an employee reinstated after suspension without being awarded any punishment is entitled to the remaining 50% of unpaid wages?
- Is an employee entitled to compensation under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 alongside unpaid wages upon reinstatement following suspension?
- Can the Labour Appellate Tribunal exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against an order of the Labour Court?
DECISION
This is an application under section 38(3‑a), I.R.O., 1969, filed by the applicant Pakistan Railways seeking suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal against the illegality and impropriety of an order, dated 14‑12‑1985 passed by the Sindh Labour Court. No.III, Karachi, as an appellate authority over an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Central Division Karachi, granting an amount of Rs.9,396 to the respondent.
2.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed as a semi‑skilled fitter with the appellant Railways and was placed under suspension from 30‑10‑1978 to 1D‑3‑1979 but was paid only 50% of his basic wages plus the usual allowances and on his reinstatement, he was not paid the remaining 50% of his wages as he was not assigned any reason for his suspension or was awarded any punishment for any offence. As per claim of the respondent, besides his entitlement under the relevant Labour Laws, he was. also entitled for the claim under Pakistan Railways Fundamental Rules published in Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume II, the respondent claimed that as he has also performed over‑time, therefore, he should also be paid the over‑time. Being aggrieved with the refusal order of applicant Pakistan Railways, the respondent submitted an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the learned Authority under payment of Wages Act, Central Division, Karachi, who allowed this application. As. the applicant Pakistan Railways was not satisfied with this order. therefore. it filed an appeal before the Labour Court who had assed the impugned order.
3.The applicant Pakistan Railways resisted the claims of the respondent that as per Pakistan Railways Rules, the respondent was not entitled to full wages for the period of suspension and more over, the respondent had never worked over‑time so, he was not also entitled for any such amount. Therefore, his application before the learned Authority was not maintainable.
4.I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the applicant Pakistan Railways and also perused the record and proceeding of the case. Nemo was present on behalf of the respondent, namely, Syea Ali, Mr. Latif Saghar the learned Advocate for the applicant, Pakistan Railways, besides his other pleadings, has also submitted a photostat copy of a Decision of the High Court of Sindh, in the case of Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi v. Mst. Zareen Begum and 8 others passed on 19‑11‑1986, and thus, has rightly contended that the respondent, in view of the observation of the High Court was only entitled to his wages etc. but not for any compensation, as has been awarded in the present case. I would, therefore, agree with the contentions resisted by Mr. Latif Saghar the learned Advocate for the applicant Pakistan Railways and order accordingly.
5.For the reasons stated by me above, .I would set aside ‑the impugned order and would direct the applicant, Pakistan Railways to make immediate payment of Rs.1,004 to the respondent, as his remaining 50% monthly wages which were not paid to him on his re‑instatement and he will not be entitled to any other amount
M.Y.H./1182/Lb.S Petition allowed.
Judges on this bench
- Ali Nawaz Budhani721 judgments