2017 PLP 65 (PLC)
SONERI BANK LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and others
| Citation | 2017 PLP 65 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SONERI BANK LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and others |
| Primary Law | (a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 65 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 65 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 65 (PLC) (SONERI BANK LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Waqar Haider Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Kamran Ali, authority under Payment of Wages Act for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 11-10-2013 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in W.P. No. 12284 of 2013)
S. 2(i)
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(b)
Bank as a "commercial establishment"
From the definition of 'commercial establishment' given in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with reference to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, it was clear that the Bank fell within the said definition
Any workman of a Bank aggrieved of non-payment of wages could approach the relevant authority established for such purposes.
S. 2(i)
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Dispute over payment of wages of a 'workman'
Constitutional petition before High Court challenging the status of a person as a 'workman'
Question as to whether a person was a `workman' within the purview of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was a matter of jurisdictional fact
Where a commercial establishment had lost its case on account that the person was found to be a 'workman', such finding of fact should be challenged in appeal and not in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the plea that the order of the authority determining such jurisdictional fact was a void determination.