1992 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))
NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus PAKISTAN JUTE AND SYNTHETIC LTD., KARACHI
| Citation | 1992 PLP 696 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus PAKISTAN JUTE AND SYNTHETIC LTD., KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act 1973 (I of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act 1973 (I of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 696 (PLC(CS)) (NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus PAKISTAN JUTE AND SYNTHETIC LTD., KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 1st April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S3(6) [as added by Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act (VI of 1985)]
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 193(,), S.17
Increased swages
Right to receive increased wages was given by workers to an office bearer of CBA Union to recover arrears of their wages through Authority under Payment of Wages Act
Authority had allowed their full claim but management filed an appeal against such decision
Office-bearer entered into compromise such decision with management under which he gave up claim of those workers in respect of whom increased wages with effect from a certain date were to be claimed and who were no more in service of management-- office-bearer also inserted certain clauses in agreement which were not subject-matter of original application before the Authority
Labour Court, however, did not accept compromise as legal and rejected the application-- Right to receive increase in wages was conferred upon all such workers who were in the employment of establishment on and after certain specified date-- Such right conferred by law could not be taken away from workmen
As the office-bearer of CBA Union was authorised to recover arrears, he could have no right to give up the claim of certain workers who were in service on and after specified date but had left service of employer before compromise application was moved
Order of Labour Court refusing compromise was upheld. Nazar Akber for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Nazar Akber for Applicant. Date of hearing: 1st April, 1991. DECISION This is a Revision Application filed against the order dated 23-2-1991 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.l whereby the compromise application filed by parties before the learned Labour Court in Appeal No.1/90.unaer section 17 of Payment of Wages Act against the order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act was rejected.
2. I have heard Mr. Nazar Akber learned counsel for the applicant and also gone through the relevant papers produced alongwith the memo. of Revision Application.
3. It appears that about 852 workers had authorised one Noor Mohammad, an office-bearer of the CBA union to recover the arrears of their wages through Authority under Payment of Wages Act. It appears that the Authority had allowed their claim in full and ordered the management to deposit Rs.3,01,742.27 in respect of the claim of workers. The management filed an appeal against the said order of the learned Authority. In appeal the aforesaid Noor Mohammad entered into compromise application with the management, under which he gave up the claim of those workers in respect of 13.5% increase in wages w.e.f. 1-7-1985, who were no more in the service of the establishment, and also inserted certain clauses in the agreement which were not subject-matter of the original application before the Authority. In the opinion of the learned Labour Court such compromise application was not legal and could not be allowed.
4. The right to receive increase of 13.5% in the wages is conferred upon all such workers who were in the employment of the establishment from 1-7-1985 by virtue of subsection (6) of section 3 of the Employees' Cost of Living Act, 1974. This subsection was added by Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1985. This is a right conferred by law which cannot be taken away from the workmen. As Noor Mohammad was authorised to recover the arrears, he could not have the right to give up the claim of certain workers, who were in service of the establishment on and after 1-7-1985 but had left the service of the respondent before the compromise application was moved, as this right was conferred upon them by law. As such the learned Labour Court had rightly refused to accept compromise application. I see no illegality in the order to call for any interference by this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu revisional powers under section 38(3-A) of IRO, 1969. The Revision Application is dismissed. The learned Labour Court to dispose of the appeal on merits unprejudiced by its previous order or by this order of the Tribunal. M.Y.H./1895/Lb.S Petition dismissed.