1986 PLP 1972 (SCMR)
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS — Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1972 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS — Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1972 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1972 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1972 (SCMR) (DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS — Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 15th May, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court. Karachi, dated 27th May, 1985 in Constitutional Petition No. S-38 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15(3)--Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia questions whether respondents claim was covered by the term "delayed wages" or "deducted wages" as defined in subsection (3) of S. 15 of Act and whether recreation allowance is a part of monthly salary/pay given to respondents in their particular grades of pay.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 15th May, 1986. ADBUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑The dispute in these petitions relates to what was claimed and paid to the private respondents as milage allowance along with recreation allowance as part of their pay. The question of law raised in the petitions inter alia are as under: (1) Whether respondents' claim as covered by the terms "delayed wages" or "deducted wages" as defined in sub‑section (3) of A section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. (2) Whether recreation allowance is a part of monthly salary/pay given to respondents in their particular grades of pay.
3. Since the questions of law raised in these petitions are likely to govern large number of cases it is necessary to render an authoritative decision of this Court. Leave is granted and the petitions are allowed.
4. Petitions will be heard on the present record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
5. Status quo with regard to the payments of the disputed amount shall be maintained till the appeals are decided. M.I. Leave granted.