1994 PLP 573 (PLC)
PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 5, FAISLABAD and others
| Citation | 1994 PLP 573 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 5, FAISLABAD and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 573 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 573 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 573 (PLC) (PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 5, FAISLABAD and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Azam for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Ch. M. Khalid Farooq for Respondent No. 3.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Azam for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Ch. M. Khalid Farooq for Respondent No.
3. Date of hearing: 4th May, 1993. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 4698, 4699, 4700 and 4701 of 1982 involving identical questions of law and facts and arising out 'of order dated 22‑9‑1982 passed by the Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad.
2. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that the claim of private respondents for promotion as Time‑keeper was turned down on the ground that neither they deserved to be promoted nor there was any vacancy as such. On these premises it was argued that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was not justified in accepting their application for payment of the purported delayed wages merely on the ground that they were performing the duties of Time‑keeper, in that, they had no right to claim wages under the provisions of the Act.
3. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner relates to appreciation of evidence and the controversy raised herein is concluded by a finding of fact which is not open to challenge here. Furthermore, this is not a fit case for the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction, in that, the disputed amount deposited by the petitioners with the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has already been released to the private respondents before filing of the writ petition. In view of the above, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./P‑102/L Petitions dismissed.