2001 PLP 634 (PLC)
PERSONNEL MANAGER and another Versus Mst. REKHMEENA and 2 others
| Citation | 2001 PLP 634 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal N.‑W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza, Chairman |
| Parties | PERSONNEL MANAGER and another Versus Mst. REKHMEENA and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 634 (PLC)?
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 2001 PLP 634 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal N.‑W.F.P. bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 634 (PLC) (PERSONNEL MANAGER and another Versus Mst. REKHMEENA and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Jehanzaib Rahim for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
1989 PLC 176 ref. Zain Khan son/attorney of Respondent No‑I. (in person).
Judgment & Decree
Barrister Jehanzaib Rahim for Petitioners. Zain Khan son/attorney of Respondent No‑I. (in person). This is a petition under section 38(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the judgment dated 28‑9‑2000 whereby the Labour Court at Mardan while exercising appellate jurisdiction had maintained the order dated 31‑5‑2000 of the authority under Payment of Wages Act, granting a decree of Rs.20,605 in favour of the legal heirs of Yousaf Khan employee against Pakistan Tobacco Company.
2. Yousaf Khan was a seasonal worker with Pakistan Tobacco Company (PTC) with effect front 15‑6‑1986 to 8‑12‑1986. After his discharge from service on 8‑12‑1986 he died on 28‑4‑1987. Having failed to lay down his claim during his lifetime, his legal representative brought the present claim as late as on 15‑7‑1999 under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.
3. The original claim was of Rs.80,000 out of which the authority on 31‑5‑2000 decreed a sum of Rs.20,605 against which the appeal was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the only technical ground that the appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act was not filed by the appellant in person. The learned Appellate forum relied upon 1989 PLC page
176. The P.T.C., has come up in revision.
4. A perusal of section 17 of Payment of Wages Act would not indicate I that the appeal must by all means be filed by the appellant himself. I Section 17(1)(a) of the Act simply states that it shall be filed by the employer A and the language is not couched with specific negative works that it cannot be filed either by an attorney or by a counsel or any one specific authority in that behalf. A failure to do so is also not provided with any punitive consequence. In this view of the matter it would be too stringent to import the conditions.
5. The authority relied upon by the trial Court relates to section 37(3) of the I.R.O. and not to section 17 of Payment of Wages Act. Even with reference to section 37(3) of the I.R.O. I have reservations, to the above effect, about the findings in the authority because the terminology used in that section also does not lay down emphatically that the appeal must be filed by the party itself and that the one filed by the attorney or the counsel would not be maintainable.
6. In the circumstances, the revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgment dated 28‑9‑2000 is set aside, Appeal No. 4 of 2000 "Personnel g Manager etc. v. Mst: Rekhmeena is revived before the Labour Court, which in turn, is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Parties to appear before the Labour Court at Mardan on 14‑7‑2001. H.B.T./4/N.‑W.F.P. Order accordingly.