1997 PLP 153 (PLC)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION SCARP, NAUSHERO FEROZE Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 161 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP 153 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION SCARP, NAUSHERO FEROZE Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 161 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 153 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 153 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Qazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 153 (PLC) (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION SCARP, NAUSHERO FEROZE Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 161 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1996
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38 (3-a)‑‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17‑‑‑Revision‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Labour Court before which appeal against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act was filed, had directed that disputed amount should be deposited by ‑employer/appellant in Court within 30 days, but such order of Appellate Court was not complied with by appellant/employer‑‑‑Appeal which otherwise was filed by employer beyond prescribed period of 30 days was dismissed by Appellate Court for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑‑Certificate of deposit of disputed amount was also not filed by employer alongwith its revision petition, Held; appeal was rightly dismissed by Appellate Court for non‑compliance of mandatory provisions of law‑‑ Revision petition was not maintainable, in circumstances. M.A. Khanzada for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 38 (3-a)‑‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17‑‑‑Revision‑‑ Maintainability‑‑‑Labour Court before which appeal against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act was filed, had directed that disputed amount should be deposited by ‑employer/appellant in Court within 30 days, but such order of Appellate Court was not complied with by appellant/employer‑‑‑Appeal which otherwise was filed by employer beyond prescribed period of 30 days was dismissed by Appellate Court for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑‑Certificate of deposit of disputed amount was also not filed by employer alongwith its revision petition, Held; appeal was rightly dismissed by Appellate Court for non‑compliance of mandatory provisions of law‑‑ Revision petition was not maintainable, in circumstances. M.A. Khanzada for Applicant. Date of hearing: 24th April, 1996 The Authority for Payment of Wages Act allowed a sum of Rs.23,05,193.75 to 161 workers, working under the Executive Engineer Tube‑Well Scarp, Nausharo Feroze. This payment was disputed and appeal was filed before Labour Court, `Sukkur against the order of the Authority. The Labour Court directed under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act that sum ordered by the Authority in respect of Wages be deposited in Court within 30 days. This order was not complied with by the appellant. The appeal was also otherwise barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 30 days allowed for the purpose. On these grounds appeal was dismissed.
2. Against this order of dismissal of appeal a Revision Application has been filed in this Tribunal. Even by filing this Revision Application on 27‑2‑1994 or until now up to this date of hearing no certificate of deposit of the amount has been produced. This certificate being mandatory under section 17(1‑a) appeal did not lie before the Labour Court. The appeal having been dismissed rightly no Revision is maintainable before the Tribunal.
3. The Revision Application is therefore dismissed in limine H. B. T /94/Lb.S Revision dismissed.