1990 PLP 715 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
| Citation | 1990 PLP 715 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 715 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 715 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 715 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Noor Hussain for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.15(2)‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Withheld wages‑‑‑Workman dismissed for misconduct but awarded reinstatement by Labour Court allowing back benefits subject to result of fresh enquiry by employer‑‑‑Back benefits refused on plea that workman failed to participate in fresh enquiry hence enquiry could not be completed‑‑‑Plea was repelled as it was duty of employer to complete enquiry even ex parte on basis of material brought on record‑‑‑Order of Authority and Labour Court under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allowing wages representing back benefits, was upheld in revision by Labour Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Noor Hussain for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1989. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 10‑4‑1988 recorded by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and one dated 12‑9‑1988 recorded by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. The respondent has not appeared in spite of the fact that a notice was sent to him by registered post. Since the notice sent to the respondent by registered post, has not been received back unserved, the presumption therefore is that it has been received by him. The respondent, therefore, has been proceeded against ex parte.
2. The respondent brought an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act in the Court of learned Authority under the said Act for recovery of Rs.25,
400. The learned Courts below have allowed wages for the period from 10‑4‑1980 to 16‑6‑1982 and have disallowed the claim for the period prior to that on the ground that it was time‑barred. The respondent was removed from service and by the order of the Court was directed to be reinstated accepting the application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. With regard to back benefits, it was observed that it would depend upon the result of fresh enquiry. The case of the petitioner is that fresh enquiry was started but the respondent did not participate in it, therefore, it could not be completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the respondent was at fault in not getting the enquiry completed, he is not entitled to the wages for the period from 10‑4‑1980 to 16‑6‑1982. On the face of it, the argument has no force. Even if it be admitted that the respondent did not join the enquiry and was served with an enquiry notice, yet it was the duty of the petitioner to complete the enquiry ex parte and to decide the case, according to the material brought on the record. In these circumstances, the respondent was entitled to back benefits for the period he had remained under the order of removal from service. The learned Courts below thus have rightly allowed wages to the respondent for the period from 10‑4‑1980 to 16‑6‑1982.
3. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed ex parte. A.E./684/Lb. P Revision dismissed.