2005 PLP 364 (PLC)
MUGHAL SURGICAL (PVT.) LTD. and others Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO.7 and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 364 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | MUGHAL SURGICAL (PVT.) LTD. and others Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO.7 and others |
| Primary Law | (a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), (b) Appeal (Civil) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 364 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), (b) Appeal (Civil) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 364 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 364 (PLC) (MUGHAL SURGICAL (PVT.) LTD. and others Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO.7 and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Quddoos Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmud ul-Islam Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.2898 to 2901-L of 2003).
- Mahmud-ul-Islam Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.493-L of 2004).
- M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.68 and 99 to 102-L of 2004).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd December, 2004.
- Rana Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for' Petitioner (in C.P. No.279-L of 2004).
- 2. Mian Abdul Quddoos, Advocate Supreme Court appearing in the Civil Petitions Nos.2898-L to 2901-L of 2003, Rana Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court appearing in Civil Petition 279-L of 2004 and Mr. Mahmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record appearing in Civil Petition No.493-L of 2004 submit at the very outset that they had instructions to withdraw their respective petitions to enable the petitioners to go back to the appellate forum under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with fresh appeals after depositing the decretal amount and consequently pray for permission to withdraw the said petitions.
- 4. Mr. M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court, however, elected to pursue the petitions filed by him and was consequently heard in support thereof.
- 8. The only submission made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in all these petitions was that the proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which required deposit of the decretal amount was a clog on the right of the petitioners and thus, had to be ignored.
- 10. Reliance had been rightly placed by the learned Judge in Chamber on the case of Syed Match Company Limited 2003 SCMR 1493 by distinguishing the same from other cases decided by this Court on the ground that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was a law which had been enacted for the benefit of the workmen and had to be interpreted and applied in the spirit which had led to the enactment of the said law. The judgments cited by the learned Advocate Supreme Court were the judgments arising out of enactments other than the Payment of Wages Act 1936 and were no precedent for deciding the present case. It may be added that the right of appeal is not a natural or an inherent right of litigants but is a statutory right granted by different laws under different enactments and such a right had to be considered and examined in the light of the conditions prescribed by the law granting the said right. Needless to add that under the enactment in the C.P.C. or the Cr.P.C. every order and decision is not appealable and we know that even under the C.P.C. there are provisions which prohibit grant of interim relief unless the decretal amount was deposited.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments/orders dated 16-9-2003 and 17-11-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petitions Nos.5072, 5074, 5603, 4835, 8740, 11016, 11015, 11017, 11018 and 1027 of 2003, respectively).
Object of Payment of Wages Act, 1936
Payment of Wages Act had been enacted for benefit of workmen, which would be interpreted and applied in the spirit leading to its enactment. Syed Match Company Limited's case 2003 SCMR 1493 ref.
Such right is not a natural or an inherent right of litigants, but is a statutory right granted by different laws under different enactments
Such right must be considered and examined in the light of conditions prescribed by law granting such right
Every order and decision is not appealable under C.P.C. and Cr.P.C.
Granting of interim order without deposit of decretal amount is prohibited under some provisions of C.P.C. Rana Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for' Petitioner (in C.P. No.279-L of 2004).
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2898-L to 2901-L of 2003, 279-L, 493-L, 68-L and 99-L to 102-L of 2004 as all these petitions arise out of the similar facts and involve identical legal issues.
2. Mian Abdul Quddoos, Advocate Supreme Court appearing in the Civil Petitions Nos.2898-L to 2901-L of 2003, Rana Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court appearing in Civil Petition 279-L of 2004 and Mr. Mahmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record appearing in Civil Petition No.493-L of 2004 submit at the very outset that they had instructions to withdraw their respective petitions to enable the petitioners to go back to the appellate forum under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with fresh appeals after depositing the decretal amount and consequently pray for permission to withdraw the said petitions.
3. The prayer is reasonable and is allowed. Civil Petitions Nos.2898-L to 2901-L of 2003, Civil Petition No.279-L and Civil. Petition No.493-L of 2004 are dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Mr. M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court, however, elected to pursue the petitions filed by him and was consequently heard in support thereof.
5. The facts common to the petitions i.e. Civil Petitions Nos.68-L and 99-L to 102-L of 2004 are that the private respondents who were employed with the petitioner-Company filed claims before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as according to the said respondents the petitioner-Company had illegally deducted certain amounts of money from their wages. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act allowed the claims of the respondents which led the present petitioner to the Labour Court with separate appeals under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which appeals were dismissed essentially on the ground that the appellant before the learned Labour Court i.e. petitioner before us had failed to deposit the wages ordered to be paid by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
6. The petitioner then approached the Lahore High Court through separate writ petitions which have since been dismissed through a consolidated judgment dated 17-11-2003.
7. Hence these petitions.
8. The only submission made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in all these petitions was that the proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which required deposit of the decretal amount was a clog on the right of the petitioners and thus, had to be ignored.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length.
10. Reliance had been rightly placed by the learned Judge in Chamber on the case of Syed Match Company Limited 2003 SCMR 1493 by distinguishing the same from other cases decided by this Court on the ground that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was a law which had been enacted for the benefit of the workmen and had to be interpreted and applied in the spirit which had led to the enactment of the said law. The judgments cited by the learned Advocate Supreme Court were the judgments arising out of enactments other than the Payment of Wages Act 1936 and were no precedent for deciding the present case. It may be added that the right of appeal is not a natural or an inherent right of litigants but is a statutory right granted by different laws under different enactments and such a right had to be considered and examined in the light of the conditions prescribed by the law granting the said right. Needless to add that under the enactment in the C.P.C. or the Cr.P.C. every order and decision is not appealable and we know that even under the C.P.C. there are provisions which prohibit grant of interim relief unless the decretal amount was deposited.
11. Having thus, examined this matter from all angles we find that no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment.
12. Civil Petitions Nos.68-L and 99-L to 102-L of 2004 are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. S.A.K./M-252/S Leave refused.