1995 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))
M/s. LUCKY TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI Versus MAHTAB
| Citation | 1995 PLP 653 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | M/s. LUCKY TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI Versus MAHTAB |
| Primary Law | 1981 PLC 307 rel. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: 1981 PLC 307 rel. as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 653 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 653 (PLC(CS)) (M/s. LUCKY TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI Versus MAHTAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17‑‑‑Payment of Wages Rules, 1937‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Appeal from order under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 having been filed in Labour Court under S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, a revision, could not be filed under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against order passed in such appeal‑‑‑Labour Court acting as Appellate Authority, was not bound by Rules of Procedure prescribed by Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but by procedure provided by Payment of Wages Rules, 1937‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of power under S.38(3‑a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, could not revise decision of Labour Court acting as an Appellate Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Khursheed Ahmad Siddiqui for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17‑‑‑Payment of Wages Rules, 1937‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Maintainability of‑‑‑Appeal from order under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 having been filed in Labour Court under S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, a revision, could not be filed under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against order passed in such appeal‑‑‑Labour Court acting as Appellate Authority, was not bound by Rules of Procedure prescribed by Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but by procedure provided by Payment of Wages Rules, 1937‑‑‑Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of power under S.38(3‑a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, could not revise decision of Labour Court acting as an Appellate Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Khursheed Ahmad Siddiqui for Applicant. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1995. This is a Revision Application filed by M/s Lucky Textile Mills against an order of the Labour Court passed in appeal from the order of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
2. A question arises whether a Revision Application can be filed before the Tribunal under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O. The appeal from the order under Payment of Wages Act has been filed in the Labour Court under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. A revision cannot therefore be filed under the I.R.O. against the order passed in appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. A Labour Court acting as Appellate Authority is not bound by Rules of Procedure prescribed by Industrial Relations Ordinance but by procedure provided by Payment of Wages Rules, 1937. Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under section 38 of the Ordinance cannot revise decision of Labour Court acting as an Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as held in the case of Pakistan v. Maqsood Ali and 82 others, a decision of Lahore High. Court reported in 1981 PLC
307. It has been held in that case that even High Court has no jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. to revised the appellate order passed by the Labour Court just as the Labour Appellate Tribunal cannot exercise powers under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O., 1969 in case of an order under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show under what law this Revision Application lies against an appellate order passed under Payment of Wages Act. Ad interim Stay Order passed in this Revision Application withholding Payment, under the order of the Authority for Payment of Wages Act, is hereby discharged. H.B.T./2480/Lb.S Revision dismissed.