1995 PLP 530 (PLC)
Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAH and 4 others Versus MANAGER, PERVAIZ TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE
| Citation | 1995 PLP 530 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAH and 4 others Versus MANAGER, PERVAIZ TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 530 (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 1995 PLP 530 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 530 (PLC) (Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAH and 4 others Versus MANAGER, PERVAIZ TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana A. Hamid Talib for Petitioners.
- Ch. Anwar Ali for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑‑Claims of gratuity filed by dismissed employees rejected by employer‑‑‑Plea of employees that orders of dismissal having not been passed by employer but by a different person, Authority would have jurisdiction to go behind such orders, repelled‑‑Held: Order which was void or without jurisdiction could be ignored but it would be necessary to challenge same when it had been enforced against a party‑‑‑Order of dismissal could be challenged by an employee before Labour Court if such employee was a worker‑‑ Authority under Payment of Wages Act would have no jurisdiction to grant claim of gratuity by a dismissed worker.
Judgment & Decree
Rana A. Hamid Talib for Petitioners. Ch. Anwar Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1986. The revisions captioned above report that the orders dated 20‑3‑1986 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The petitioners had brought separate applications under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for claiming gratuity, five per cent. profit for the years 1978 to 1980, bonus for the said years and encashment of un-availed leave. The learned authority has dismissed the applications so far as the claim with regard to five per cent. profit, bonus and encashment of un-availed leave for the reasons that no evidence was produced by the petitioners to prove the claim. So far as gratuity is concerned, it was held that since the petitioners had been dismissed from service, they could not claim gratuity without setting the order of dismissal set aside by a competent Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the orders of the Courts below so far as the claim of the petitioners with regard to five per cent. profit, bonus and encashment of un-availed leave are concerned. So far as gratuity is concerned, he has argued that the orders of dismissal were not passed by the employer but by a different person and the Authority, therefore, had jurisdiction to go behind such orders. I am afraid there is no force in this argument of the learned counsel. An order which is void or without jurisdiction may be ignored but it becomes necessary to challenge the same when it is enforced against a party. Since the respondent had not acceded to the claim of the petitioners with regard to gratuity on the plea that they had been dismissed A from service, it had become necessary for the petitioners first to have the order of dismissal challenged before the learned Labour Court and after they had remained successful, only then they could go to the Authority for claiming gratuity. No doubt, the petitioners assert that they had resigned from the posts but no written resignation nor any order passed thereon were produced in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that no written resignation was made nor any written orders were passed. The pleas, therefore, is fallacious. Needless to say that an order of dismissal can be challenged by an employee before the Labour Court if he is a worker and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction in this respect.
4. As a result, all the five revisions fail and are dismissed. AA./170/Lb.P Revisions dismissed.