1988 PLP 458 (MLD)
ZAHIR SHAH‑‑Plaintiff Versus M/V KONKAR TRITON‑‑Defendant
| Citation | 1988 PLP 458 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, CJ |
| Parties | ZAHIR SHAH‑‑Plaintiff Versus M/V KONKAR TRITON‑‑Defendant |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 458 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 458 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Naimuddin, CJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 458 (MLD) (ZAHIR SHAH‑‑Plaintiff Versus M/V KONKAR TRITON‑‑Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 14th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Suit for recovery of wages, allowances, overtime and pay in lieu of leave‑‑Defendant admitting claim of plaintiff in suit except wages for three months and‑ six days, claim for which, defendant prayed, could be preferred by plaintiff in ordinary Civil Court with liberty to defendant to raise all objections available to it‑‑Court by consent decreeing suit of plaintiff without prejudice to plaintiffs claim for wages for three months and six days and also without prejudice to defendant's objections and pleas that it might raise in any other proceedings that might be filed by plaintiff. S. Sharif Khattak for Plaintiff. Abdul Inam for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
DRS 98245. (iv) Unpaid overtime from 19‑7‑1983 to 31‑8‑1983 (110 his single and 45 his double). This calculation of overtime is based on the personal record of the plaintiff. DRS 43125 (vi) Overtime from 1‑11‑1983 to 12‑11‑1983 50 his single and 20 his double). This calculation of overtime is based on the personal record of the plaintiff. DRS 19,430 (vii) Extra payment (when the crew performs some work not covered by his trade). The plaintiff performed crane work etc. Heage cleaning, Store water tank cleaning from period 19‑7‑1983 to 12 -11‑1983. DRS 32,672 DRS 32671 (vii) Wages due to be paid for the remaining period of employment from 12‑11‑1983 to 18‑2‑1984. DRS 128,950 Total amount due DRS 4,92739 (Equivalent to Pak. Rs.73,098)" Plaintiff claims that he was employed for seven months, but according to the defendant the plaintiff was not employed for any definite period. The defendant claims that it has paid wages, allowances, overtime and leave‑pay to 31st October, 1983. Mr. Abdul Inam, learned counsel for the defendant however, admits at the Bar that the total wages, allowances, overtime and leavepay which the plaintiff is entitled comes to DRS 1,66,227 upto 12‑11‑1983 as per Exh: 'D'. Mr. Abdul Inam further claims that defendant is entitled to deduct therefrom A DRS 66,285 on account of substitutes expenses, penalty and some miscellaneous amount mentioned in Exh.D.l. He says that under the admiralty jurisdiction in a suit in rem, the plaintiff can claim only earned wages and allowances etc. which according to him comes to DRS.1,66,277 Mr. Abdul Inam further states that he I would not press for deduction of these amounts and would submit to a decree for Rs.23,080 equivalent to DRS 1,66,227 and he further agrees that if the plaintiff has any other claim in respect of alleged remaining period of three months and six days out of seven months, he may prefer the same in ordinary civil Court but giving the defendant liberty in such a case to raise all the objections available to her. To this proposal, Mr. M. Sharif Khattak, learned counsel for the plaintiff agrees. Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid statement 1 by consent, decree the suit for Rs.23,080 equivalent to DRS. 1,66,227 with no order as to costs. This will be without prejudice to the plaintiffs claims. for the wages and allowances for three months and six days, and also without prejudice to the defendant's objections and pleas that she may have and raise in any other proceedings that may be filed by the plaintiff. M.Y.H./Z‑56/K Suit decreed.