1984 PLP 1387 (PLC)
WAPDA Versus PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 2, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1387 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | WAPDA Versus PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 2, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1387 (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 1984 PLP 1387 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court Lahore bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1387 (PLC) (WAPDA Versus PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 2, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A Mian Iqbal Khalid for Petitioner.
- Mr. Mahmood Hussain for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 6th May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15 read with West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17 (1-B) and Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 212-WAPDA employees (Linemen)-Civil servants for purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973-Disputes pertaining to their terms and conditions of service within exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal-Order passed by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 granting an amount as delayed wages and order of Labour Court in appeal maintaining such order, held, without lawful authority and of no legal effect-Constitutional petition-Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner challenges the order, dated 16th June, 1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of the respondent No. 2 granting a sum of Rs. 16,568.94 as delayed wages to the respondents 3 to 6 was maintained.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondents 3 to 6, who were working as linemen in the Electricity Wing of WAPDA, were transferred by the Superintending Engineer, from one sub-division to the other vide order dated 17th of July, 1979. They were also relieved of their duties and the charge was given to the new incumbents on 18th July, 1979. The respondents, however, challenged the order of transfer under Indus trial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Court No. III, on the ground that the same has been done mala fidely to curb the trade-union activities. The Labour Court passed a status quo order on 27th of August, 1979 but the respondents 3 to 6 remained absent from duty. Subsequently, on understanding being reached before the Labour Court, the respondents were transferred within the Sahiwal Circle and they withdrew their petition on 13th April, 1980.
3. The respondents 3 to 6 then filed an application under section 15 (3) of the Payment of Wages Act before the respondent No. 2 for paying them a sum of Rs. 17,399.00 as delayed wages in addition to 10 times compensation. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of respon dent No. 2 but he accepted the application of the respondents without reverting to the question of jurisdiction and directed payment of a sum of Rs. 16,568.94 vide his order, dated 29th of. March, 1981. An appeal of the petitioner failed as stated above. He has now filed the present consti tutional petition.
4. It is contended that as the respondents 3 to 6 were civil servants in view of section 17 (1-B) of the WAPDA Act, they could not be granted any relief by respondents I and 2 in respect of their terms and conditions of the service. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the WAPDA is a factory and, therefore, the respondents do not fall within the definition of civil servants.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the contention of the petitioner has much force. Section 17 (I-B) of the l WAPDA Act has been. incorporated to state that the respondents shall be civil servants for the purpose of Services Tribunal. The dispute which had been taken to the respondents 1 and 2 also pertains to their terms and conditions of service. In view of Article 212 therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the terms and conditions of respondents 3 to 6 was without lawful authority. 1n view, of the above, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties shall bear their own costs. A. E. Petition accepted.