1990 PLP 484 (PLC)
AMJAD ASHRAF KHAN Versus GENERAL MANAGER PECO
| Citation | 1990 PLP 484 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | AMJAD ASHRAF KHAN Versus GENERAL MANAGER PECO |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 484 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 484 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 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: 1990 PLP 484 (PLC) (AMJAD ASHRAF KHAN Versus GENERAL MANAGER PECO). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Malik Bashir Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 5, 7 & 15‑‑Deduction in wages‑‑Shortage of articles‑‑Amount paid in lieu of shortage of articles, held, was deduction in wages‑‑It was not necessary that actually deduction should have been made from wages‑‑if a person employed was ordered to pay some amount and order was not justified and not covered under S.7 of the Act it amounted to illegal deduction‑‑Revision against order accepted and case remanded to Authority for decision on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Anwar Ali Chaudhry for Petitioner. Malik Bashir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th December, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4‑9‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, 'Lahore and the order dated 6‑6‑1985 recorded by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Lahore, are wrong and improper.
2. The petitioner was ordered by the respondent to pay Rs.5,000 on account of an alleged shortage of articles. The petitioner is alleged to have sold his motor cycle and paid the amount. He, therefore, brought an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of the amount on the plea that it was an illegal deduction. The learned lower Courts have dismissed the petition on the sole ground that it was not case of deduction of wages since according to the petitioner, the Wages were not deducted from his pay but he paid the amount of Rs.5,000 in cash. No finding has been recorded on the point of shortage and whether there was justification to ask the petitioner to pay the amount. No clear cut finding has been recorded whether actually the amount was paid or not. The petition was dismissed on the sole ground that the amount paid by the petitioner did not amount to deduction from his wages. This finding is wrong: It is not necessary that actually deduction should have been made from the wages. If the person employed is ordered to pay some amount and the order is not justified and is not covered by Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, it amounts to illegal deduction as is clear from the explanation given under the said section. It reads a; under:‑ "Every payment made by the employed person to the employer or his agent shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a deduction from wages." It appears that the explanation was not brought to the notice of the learned courts below.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned orders, the case is remanded to the learned Authority for decision on merits. M.Y.H./283/Lb.P Petition accepted.