1988 PLP 658 (PLC(CS))
TAJA MASIH and 3 others Versus CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE RABWAH
| Citation | 1988 PLP 658 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, |
| Parties | TAJA MASIH and 3 others Versus CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE RABWAH |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 658 (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 1988 PLP 658 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 658 (PLC(CS)) (TAJA MASIH and 3 others Versus CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE RABWAH). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Representation for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.15 (2)‑‑Service of notice‑‑Ex parte decision taken by Authority under Payment of Wages Act against respondent holding that notices had been served‑‑Record showing that notices were despatched by registered A. D. post, but notices could not be received by respondent on specified date as such date had already expired when notices were despatched‑ ‑A.D. receipts produced appearing to pertain to some other registered letters and not ones despatched in compliance with orders‑‑Service of notices upon respondent, held, was not established in circumstances‑‑Order of lower Court setting aside ex‑parte decision of Authority was maintained.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ashraf Representation for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1987. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the four revisions captioned above, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The facts of the case are that four applications were brought separately by the petitioners under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act in the Court of the learned Authority. Notices were issued to the respondent for 12‑11‑1986. The learned Authority proceeded ex parte against the respondent and delivered ex parte decision holding that notices had been served. The respondent went in appeal to learned Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad. The appeals were accepted and the cases were remanded for re‑decision after allowing both the parties to produce evidence. The said order has been challenged in the present revisions.
3. It is argued that notices were served upon the respondent, therefore, the learned Authority had rightly proceeded ex parte and that the‑‑ learned lower appellate Court wrongly set aside the order and remanded the cases. The notices for 12‑11‑1986 were despatched by the post office vide postal receipts on 13‑11‑1986. A.D. receipts which are on the file show that the registered letters were received on 4‑11‑1986, the notices could not be received by the respondent IA on 4‑11‑1986. The A.D. receipts appear to pertain to some other registered letters and not the ones despatched on 13‑11‑1986, in compliance with the order dated 30‑11‑1986. It is thus, clear that service of notices upon the respondent for 12‑11‑1986 was not established and the learned lower appellate Court rightly set aside the ex parte decision.
4. As a result, the revisions fail and are dismissed. M.Y.H./331/Lb.P Petitions dismissed.