1991 PLP 566 (PLC(CS))
USMAN GHANI Versus THE OCCUPIER/MANAGER, METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION, KARACHI and 2 others
| Citation | 1991 PLP 566 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | USMAN GHANI Versus THE OCCUPIER/MANAGER, METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION, KARACHI and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 566 (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 1991 PLP 566 (PLC(CS))?
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 566 (PLC(CS)) (USMAN GHANI Versus THE OCCUPIER/MANAGER, METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION, KARACHI and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 18th October, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Refund of amount deducted from wages ‑‑‑Appeal‑‑ Appeal under 8.17 of Payment of Wages Act‑‑‑Competency 'of appeal before Labour Court., lay against direction made by Authority under Ss. 15(3) & 15(4)‑‑ Order of Authority allowing respondent to contest application before Authority could not be considered as a direction under Ss. 15(3) & 15(4) and as such Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal there against. Chaudhry Muhammad Maarif, Representative for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Chaudhry Muhammad Maarif, Representative for Applicant. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1990. This revision application filed against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, IVth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 12-9-1990, whereby the appeal of the applicant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Ch. Muhammad Maarif, Representative for the applicant and have also gone through the record filed by the applicant.
3. The applicant appears to have tiled certain claim before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. During the proceedings before the learned Authority both the parties remained absent on certain dates of hearing. However, the learned Authority proceeded with the case as exparte. The applicant filed his affidavit-in-evidence by way of proof, whereafter the learned Authority fixed the matter for orders." It appears that passing of order was delayed and in the meantime, the respondent No. 1 moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order and for being allowed to lead his evidence. It appears, that the learned Authority accepted the application of the respondent and allowed them to rile written statement and lead evidence. The applicant therefore filed appeal against the said order of the Authority but the learned Labour Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that no appeal could lie under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, as the aforesaid order of the Authority could not be said ` to be directions under subsections (3) and (4) of section 15 of the said Act.
4. On going through the provisions of law, it is clear, that the appeal under section 17 could lie only against the directions made by the learned Authority under subsections (3) and (4) of section
15. Under subsection (3) the Authority could direct the refund of the amount deducted from the wages of the employee and under subsection (4) the learned Authority could impose penalty if the application is malicious and vexatious. Obviously the order of the learned Authority allowing the respondent No. 1 to contest the application before the learned Authority, cannot be considered as direction under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 15 and as such the learned Labour Court has rightly held that no applicable could lie against such order. Therefore, the revision application is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./1778/Lb. S Petition allowed.