1993 PLP 756 (PLC(CS))
SIRAJ MUHAMMAD and 3 others Versus MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., MIRPURKHAS
| Citation | 1993 PLP 756 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SIRAJ MUHAMMAD and 3 others Versus MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., MIRPURKHAS |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 756 (PLC(CS))?
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 1993 PLP 756 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 756 (PLC(CS)) (SIRAJ MUHAMMAD and 3 others Versus MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., MIRPURKHAS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Races M. Mushtaq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th May, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Employees stated that they were called upon to work on holidays, but had not been paid compensation which they were entitled to receive and claimed compensation for the delay in such payment‑‑‑Employees in proceedings before Authority could not give dates on which they had worked‑‑‑Employees had admitted that they had not made any application for payment of their dues that had remained outstanding for a number of years‑‑‑Employees were rightly held not entitled to payment as claimed by them. Nemo for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Applicants. Races M. Mushtaq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th May, 1993. These Revision Applications call in question the order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad setting aside the orders of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under tire Payment of Wages Act passed on an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The circumstances in which these arose in brief are as follows.
2. The case of the applicants was that they had been called upon to work on holidays in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 and still they had not been paid compensation which they were entitled to receive. In the other application they claimed compensation for the delay in the payment. Their petition was contested on the ground that they had availed the delayed holidays with compensatory holidays as provided under section 49(1‑A) of the Factories Act and according to the settlement with the CBA they had received 70% cash in balance as compensatory holidays".
3. These Revision Applications have remained pending for 4, 5 years and today I have received an application for adjournment from Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari. It is extremely unfortunate that the matter had remained pending for so many years and on such slender Lasis. I therefore see no occasion to wait for Mr. Muhammad Moos4 Laghari and I have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq on behalf of the respondent.
4. In the proceedings conducted by the learned Commissioner and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the witnesses had conceded that they could not give the dates on which they had worked. They also admitted that they had not made any application for the payment, of these dues that had remained outstanding for a number of years. It was also admitted that they had been receiving cash and balance but could not say on what account it was paid. This is what had been testified by Siraj Muhammad, Nazakat Hussain and also Muhammad Arshad. In this state of evidence the order of the Labour Court is very proper.
5. In the other Revision Application the demand was for ten times compensation because of the delay in payments. In the light of the earlier observation, both the Revision Applications are devoid of any merit. I will therefore uphold the orders and dismiss the Revision Applications. H.B.T./2209/Lb.S Revision applications dismissed.