1989 PLP 595 (PLC)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 34 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 595 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 34 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 595 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 595 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 595 (PLC) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 34 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Noor Hussain for Petitioner.
- Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑‑ ‑‑‑ Allowance‑‑Railway running staff allowed 55% running allowance‑‑Running staff paid 50% wages on Fridays and rest days‑‑Running allowance of 55%, held, was also admissible to the extent of same percentage as that of wages to such staff on Fridays and rest days. (b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 2 & 15‑‑Payment of Wages Act‑‑Scope and application of‑‑Petitioner failed to show that respondents were getting wages in excess of Rs.1,000‑‑Petitioner's plea that the Act was not applicable to respondents, repelled.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 2 & 15‑‑Payment of Wages Act‑‑Scope and application of‑‑Petitioner failed to show that respondents were getting wages in excess of Rs.1,000‑‑Petitioner's plea that the Act was not applicable to respondents, repelled. Ch. Noor Hussain for Petitioner. Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984. The above‑titled revision gives information that the order dated 23‑5‑1983 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the order dated 18‑8‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act are illegal and ultra vires.
2. The dispute is about 55%v running allowance for rest days and Fridays. This is a fixed allowance which is paid, irrespective of the fact if the members of the running staff go or do not go with any train. This is not disputed whether this allowance comes within the definition of wages. Since 50% wages are paid on Fridays and rest days, likewise upto the said percentage, 55% running allowance is too admissible and the orders of the Courts below on facts are unexceptional.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except four of the respondents, the rest were getting wages more than Rs.1,000 per mensem, so the Payment of Wages Act is not applicable. The learned trial Court had demanded original bill which was not produced and instead a statement of bills was produced, which was not relied upon by the learned Court. Since statement was prepared, it shows that the original bills are in existence. The Court was justified m insisting that the original bills or office copy be produced. B The calculations given in the statemment Exh. R‑3 too are wrong. So the petitioner failed to satisfy that the respondents were getting wages in excess of Rs.1,000.
4. The other point raised is that the claim was time‑barred. The period of claim is from 7‑9‑1979 to 8‑9‑1982. So only two days' claim i.e. 7‑9‑1982 and 1C 8‑9‑1982 is time‑barred, but not the whole.
5. As a result, the revision is partly accepted and the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is modified, disallowing the claim for 7‑9‑1982 and 8‑9‑1982.???????? A.E./643/Lb. P???????????????????????? ?????????? Revision part y accepted.