2010 PLP 231 (PLC)

Laws Cited

Representation

• S.M. Sharfuddin for Respondent No.2.
• JUSTICE (RETD.) ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (CHAIRMAN).--- This revision application was filed by Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries, Karachi, through their advocate. The respondent S. Zulqarnain Shah is represented by his Counsel Mr. S. M. Sharfuddin. The learned counsel for the parties were heard on 1-2-2010, 2-2-2010 and 12-2-2010. The learned counsel for the Informant Mr. Abdus Salam Baloch has contended that the Informant was never served with the notice earlier and, therefore, was condemned unheard both by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act Central Division, Karachi, as well as Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.V, Karachi. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. S.M. Sharfuddin who has contended that the required amount under the law was not deposited before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act in time by the Informant and that he was not even present before the learned Labour Court, therefore, the decision had to be the ex parte. I have heard them today including the freshly engaged counsel Mr. Muhammad Humayun who has produced before me a crossed cheques bearing No.0088697 dated 10-2-2010 amounting to Rs.171,265 (Rupees one hundred seventy one thousand two hundred sixty-five only) drawn on Silk Bank, Korangi Road Branch, Karachi, in the name of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Karachi stating that had the Informant been served with the notice by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act he would have definitely offered the payment and would have cleared his position as regards service of the respondent with -the cement factory. His contention was that the papers show that he served the management only for three months and some days and that the Authority had ordered for Rs.1,71,265 which could not be his legal dues. He has further contended that the Labour Appellate Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction was competent to revise an order made by the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. He has relied on the authority reported in PLD 1991 SC 385. I have given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and legal position. I find that in all fairness and justice, this is a fit case to be remanded for fresh decision before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Central Division, Karachi, who should hear the parties by giving them a fair chance of hearing and decide as to what should be the actual dues payable by the Informant to the respondent. If the dues are found within the limit of Rs.1,71,265 the same be paid to the respondent and matter be closed and if the balance amount remains in the name of the Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation, Karachi, in the bank, the same may be refunded to the Informant.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree