Law: Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Section: Ss. 1 (6) & 2 (vi) (c)

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 1 (6) & 2 (vi) (c)---Employee not working in factory or industrial establish ment but in office-Not covered by the Act-" Waves " include conveyance allowance and duty allowance being not dependent on performance of special duty-Travelling- allowance distinct from conveyance allowance. JUDGMENT   WAHIDUDDIN ARMED, J.-This second appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally, the then District Judge, Karachi, in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1959 dated 16th April 1959, dismissing the appeal and upholding the decree for Rs. 2,855-3-5 granted by Mr. S. M. Abdul Aziz Jafri, the then learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Karachi,, In Suit No. 1157 of 1958.   Shortly stated, the facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent was employed by the appellants as a clerk in the Clearing & Forwarding Branch of the Hyderabad Relief and Rehabilitation Trust, Karachi, on 1st July 1952, on a monthly pay of Rs. 125. On 1st January 1955 he was promoted to a post of in-charge of the branch on a basic pay of Rs. 150-10-200 with conveyance and duty allowances: Rs. 40 and Rs. 30 res pectively per month. The appellants failed to pay the salary dues of the respondent and on 31st July 1958 the respondent filed Suit No. 1157 of 1958, for the recovery of Rs. 2,855-3-5 In the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Karachi, for arrears of salary and other remunerations. The suit was resisted by the appellants, amongst others, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under section 22 (d) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It was urged that the salary of the res pondent was only Rs. 150 and as he was employed in a factory the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Courts. Both the learned Subordinate Courts have decided this question against the appellants.   Mr. Ibadat Yar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants, has attacked the judgments of the Courts below on the ground that the salary of the respondent was Rs. 150 per month and as he was employed in the factory of the appellants' trust, his case is covered by the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the suit was not…