1989 PLP 1735 (SCMR)
Malik ABDUL HAMEED Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 5,
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1735 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Malik ABDUL HAMEED Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 5, |
| Primary Law | Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance (XXXVIII of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1735 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance (XXXVIII of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1735 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1735 (SCMR) (Malik ABDUL HAMEED Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 5,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th December, 1980 in Writ Petition 6014 of 1980) -‑S.16, proviso‑‑Decision of Cotton Ginning Corporation that petitioner was not a whole time employee of establishment and thus refused to oblige him by accepting his claim for the non‑payment of wages as such‑‑Finding of fact against the petitioner being to the effect that he could not be held whole time employee of the establishment in the sense that petitioner was to look after the interest of the original owners while the factory was being run by the lessees‑‑Petition being without any substance, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Malik Abdul Hameed who claims that he was a whole time employee of the Cotton Ginning Corporation before the establishment was acquired and taken over by the lessees. His claim was to the effect that he continued to be on the pay rolls of the factory on behalf of the original owners as an administrator for looking after the interests of the original owners. 11e was therefore entitled to the payment of his wages under section 16 of the Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance 1976. He moved the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Sargodha who made an award in his favour but on appeal the Punjab Labour Court Faisalabad set aside the judgment of the Commissioner. A revision petition of the petitioner before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was subsequently dismissed. He then challenged the aforesaid orders by way of writ petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on the ground that under proviso to section 16 of the aforesaid Ordinance the decision as to whether or not a person was a whole time employee of an establishment is to be taken by the Corporation and that it shall be final. Since in the present case the corporation does not regard the petitioner as a whole time employee of the establishment, he could not claim payment of wages as such under S.16. Learned counsel before us attempted to argue that the aforesaid proviso did not apply in his case because there was no evidence on the record that the corporation at any stage took a decision to the effect that the petitioner was not a whole time employee of the establishment. It was further submitted that the corporation took up this position only during the pendency of the proceedings in the Labour Court. This argument has no force because the corporation did take the decision that the petitioner was not a whole time employee of the establishment as they had refused to oblige him by accepting his claim for the payment of wages as such. Furthermore even if it be assumed that section 16 was not a bar for the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, there is a finding of fact against the petitioner to the effect that he could not be A whole time employee of the establishment in the sense that he was to look after the interest of the original owners while the factory was being run by the lessees and that even though he was looking after the interest of the owners he was expected to be paid his wages for that purpose by the lessees. This finding of fact the petitioner is not in a position to overcome. Therefore we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./A‑541/S Petition dismissed.