2016 PLP 2168 (SCMR)
SONERI BANK LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2168 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SONERI BANK LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2168 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 2168 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2168 (SCMR) (SONERI BANK LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Law and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Waqar Haider Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Kamran Ali for Authority under Payment of Wages Act for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 11-10-2013 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in W.P. No. 12284 of 2013)
S. 2(i)
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(b)
Bank as a "commercial establishment"
From the definition of 'commercial establishment' given in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with reference to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, it was clear that the Bank fell within the said definition
Any workman of a Bank aggrieved of non-payment of wages could approach the relevant authority established for such purposes.
S. 2(i)
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Dispute over payment of wages of a 'workman'
Constitutional petition before High Court challenging the status of a person as a 'workman'
Question as to whether a person was a `workman' within the purview of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was a matter of jurisdictional fact
Where a commercial establishment had lost its case on account that the person was found to be a 'workman', such finding of fact should be challenged in appeal and not in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the plea that the order of the authority determining such jurisdictional fact was a void determination.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner/bank had not availed its remedy against the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (the Act) determining the entitlement of the respondents by filing an appeal under section 17 of the Act, rather assailed the said order through a constitution petition and also challenged the vires of the section ibid. The learned High Court dismissed the petition to the extent of the challenge to the order of the authority on the ground that the petitioner has failed to avail the remedy of an appeal and has retained the constitution petition to the extent of challenge to the vires of the said section. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgments reported as Town Committee, Gakhar Mandi v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 57 others (PLD 2002 SC 452) and Tehsil Municipal Administration Faisalabad City v. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2006 SC 166) has argued that where the order passed by an authority is void the rule that an adequate remedy should always be availed cannot be stringently applied and the constitution petition would be maintainable. When questioned as to why the order passed by the Authority is claimed to be void, learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned that the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the Act. However, when further confronted as to whether the petitioner is a 'commercial establishment' within the definition of the Act, an abortive attempt has been made to submit otherwise. From the definition of 'commercial establishment' given in the Act with reference to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (the Ordinance), it is clear that the petitioner falls within the said definition. Therefore any workman aggrieved of non-payment of wages can approach the Authority. As regards the question as to whether the respondent is a 'workman' within the purview of the Ordinance; suffice it to say that this is a matter of Jurisdictional fact and if the petitioner had lost his case on account that the respondent was found to be a 'workman', such finding of fact should have been challenged in appeal and not in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the plea that the order of the authority determining such jurisdictional fact is a void determination. No case for interference in the instant jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed accordingly. MWA/S-27/SC Petition dismissed.