1991 PLP 405 (PLC)
SALEH KHAN Versus SINDH AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANIZATION and another
| Citation | 1991 PLP 405 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | SALEH KHAN Versus SINDH AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANIZATION and another |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 405 (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 1991 PLP 405 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 405 (PLC) (SALEH KHAN Versus SINDH AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANIZATION and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naamatullah J. Qureshi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th January, 1990.
- 2. I have heard Mr. Bashir. Awan, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Naamatullah, J. Qureshi learned counsel for the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.17‑‑‑Factory‑‑‑Appeal of respondent was allowed by Labour Court against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act‑‑‑No evidence had been led by any of parties as to whether respondent was a factory so as to attract applicability of Payment of Wages Act, which was a question of fact‑‑‑With consent of parties order of Labour Court as well as that of Authority under Payment of Wages Act was set aside and case was remanded to Authority to decide it on merits after allowing parties to adduced evidence on question whether respondent was a factory or not. Bashir Awan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Bashir Awan for Applicant. Naamatullah J. Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th January, 1990. DECISION This is Revision Application against the order of learned Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad dated i1-10-1986, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the learned Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act, dated 29-9-1985.
2. I have heard Mr. Bashir. Awan, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Naamatullah, J. Qureshi learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The only point that requires consideration is whether the respondents are `factory' as defined under `Factories Act' so as to attract the applicability of the Payment of Wages Act. It appears that no evidence had been led by any of the parties on this point, which is a question of fact. It is fair and proper that they should be allowed to lead evidence. Therefore, by consent of the parties the order of the learned Labour Court as well as that of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act are set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Authority to decide it on merit after allowing the parties to adduce evidence on the question as to whether the respondent is a factory as defined in the Factories Act and whether the Payment of Wages Act is applicable to the present case. M.Y.H./1627/Lb.S Case remanded.