1989 PLP 234 (PLC)
ABDUL HAQUE AZAD and 2 others Versus RUSTAM KHAN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 234 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQUE AZAD and 2 others Versus RUSTAM KHAN |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 234 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 234 (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 234 (PLC) (ABDUL HAQUE AZAD and 2 others Versus RUSTAM KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aqa Asif Jaffary for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17‑‑Revision‑‑Labour Court as appellate forum admitting appeal against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and demanding security from appellants‑‑Order of Labour Court sought to be revised on plea that neither amount as per order of Authority was deposited nor deposit certificate was produced with memo. of appeals rendering same to be incompetent‑‑No such plea was raised before Labour Court‑‑Appellate Tribunal, declined to exercise suo motu revisional powers with observations that petitioner could apply to Labour Court for rejection of appeals on above plea and could come in revision if orders of Labour Court were prejudicial to him.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17‑‑Revision‑‑Labour Court as appellate forum admitting appeal against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and demanding security from appellants‑‑Order of Labour Court sought to be revised on plea that neither amount as per order of Authority was deposited nor deposit certificate was produced with memo. of appeals rendering same to be incompetent‑‑No such plea was raised before Labour Court‑‑Appellate Tribunal, declined to exercise suo motu revisional powers with observations that petitioner could apply to Labour Court for rejection of appeals on above plea and could come in revision if orders of Labour Court were prejudicial to him. Aqa Asif Jaffary for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987. The above captioned three revision petitions report that the order dated 27‑6‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan admitting the appeals of the respondent are wrong and improper.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the three revisions, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
3. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act accepted the petitions of the petitioners for the recovery of wages and the said orders were challenged under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act in appeals before the learned lower appellate Court. The said Court admitting the appeals demanded security from the respondent. It has been argued that the amounts have not been deposited nor any certificates of the deposit of the same were produced alongwith A the appeals, therefore, according to the first proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, the appeals did not lie and could not be entertained and admitted for regular hearing. Since no decision has been recorded on this point, nor this point has been raised before the learned lower appellate Court, there was no occasion for the petitioners for coming in revision. If the learned lower appellate Court had held that the production of certificates of deposit of amount was not necessary, of course, the petitioners would have a cause to come in revision. The petitioners may apply to the learned lower appellate Court for the rejection of appeals on the ground that they have been brought without certificates from the b Authority under the Payment of Wages Act about the deposit of the amounts and if on such applications orders are passed which are prejudicial to the petitioners, then of course they may come n revision. 1n these circumstances I decline to exercise suo motu revisional powers and dismiss the revisions in limine. A.E./404/Lb. P. Revisions dismissed.