Payment of Wages

2018 PLC 37 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 15 & 3Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S.49(A)(B)(2)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionOvertime duty by the workerUnavailed annual leavePayment of wagesScopeContention of worker was that he was entitled for amount of twenty three annual leave

Competent Authority allowed the amount of Rs.9,52,036/- and Labour Court reduced the said amount to Rs.7,90,000/- but Labour Appellate Tribunal curtailed unavailed annual leave to fourteen days for the purpose of compensation-Validity

Employer had not challenged the order of Authority which was the root cause of the lis

If constitutional petition of employer was allowed even then it would not serve any purpose as order of the Authority would remain in field

Employee worked for overtime in the company

Courts below were justified in awarding overtime to the worker

Employer had failed to bring on record any material that worker availed the alleged annual leave

Section 49-B(2) of Factories Act, 1934 was applicable in the cases where a worker was offered holidays as per agreement with the employer and employee did not avail the same

Where employer refused to grant annual leave to a worker due to contingency then said provision of law could not be invoked to deprive a worker by curtailing his unavailed holidays to fourteen per annum into the subsequent year

Nothing was on record that worker was offered annual leave as per his entitlement and he failed to avail the same

Employer did not allow the worker to avail such leave

Labour Appellate Tribunal was not justified in curtailing annual leave of the worker

Worker was entitled for twenty three days annual leave and he could not be deprived of his right by applying provision of S.49-B (2) of Factories Act, 1934

Provisions of S.49-B(2) of Factories Act, 1934 could be made applicable where there was no rule for grant of annual leave beyond the minimum fourteen days provided by the statute and worker was offered but failed to avail his annual leave/holidays

Where employer had Rules for grant of annual leave of more than fourteen days then same had to be given overriding effect

Order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal was contrary to the evidence available on record

Salary of worker was fixed at Rs.7400/- but he was paid Rs.6564/- per month which was an attempt to deprive the worker of his agreed wages being his lawful right

Worker was neither paid gratuity, compensation for working Sundays and gazetted holidays despite his entitlement and same could not be treated as delayed wages

Compensation could be awarded up to ten times of deducted amount

Impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal was set aside and that of Labour Court restored

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2015 PLC 155 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3(b) & 15Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionPayment of wagesResponsibility, determination ofPetitioner assailed warrant of arrest on the plea that he was not employer from whom the recovery was to be madeValidity

Held, it was obligatory upon Commissioner Compensation/Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to determine as a threshold question against whom proceedings for recovery had to be initiated and set into motion

For such purpose the Commissioner was to make inquiries regarding current ownership and shareholders of industrial establishment in question

Either the employer or other person responsible for payment of wages could be proceeded against and it had to be determined as a fact before embarking upon recovery proceedings under S.15(5) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which provision had given power of attachment and sale of immovable property of employer

High Court set aside the warrant of arrest issued against petitioner and matter was remanded to Authorities for determination of the issue regarding identity of employer or other person responsible for payment of wages of the company

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2011 PLC 208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 15 & 17Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937, R.8Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityPayment of wagesEx parte orderRemedyPetitioner/employee had terminated services of employeeAuthorities proceeded ex parte against employer and awarded compensation to worker

Application filed by employer to recall ex parte order was dismissed and proceedings for recovery of compensation were initiated against employer

Validity

Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 did not provide that if an application for recalling order was decided by the Authority, same would be appealable before Labour Court

Legislature had not provided any appeal against allowing or rejecting of application for recalling the order, therefore, if application for recalling was decided by the Authorities under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, such decision could not be challenged in appeal under S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, because it was not a decision under S.15(3) or S.15(4) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936

As no remedy was provided against such decision on application for recalling the order, petition before High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution was maintainable

Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, should have considered application for recalling the order in accordance with Rule 8 of Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 and thereafter should have decided the application in accordance with law

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by the Authority and directed the Authority to treat application for recalling the order as pending and to decide the same in accordance with law

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2011 PLC 208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 15 & 17Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937, R.8Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityPayment of wagesEx parte orderRemedyPetitioner/employee had terminated services of employeeAuthorities proceeded ex parte against employer and awarded compensation to worker

Application filed by employer to recall ex parte order was dismissed and proceedings for recovery of compensation were initiated against employer

Validity

Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 did not provide that if an application for recalling order was decided by the Authority, same would be appealable before Labour Court

Legislature had. not provided any appeal against allowing or rejecting of application for recalling the order, therefore, if application for recalling was decided by the Authorities under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, such decision could not be challenged in appeal under S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, because it was not a decision under S.15(3) or S.15(4) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936

As no remedy was provided against such decision on application for recalling the order, petition before High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution was maintainable

Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, should have considered application for recalling the order in accordance with Rule 8 of Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 and thereafter should have decided the application in accordance with law

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by the Authority and directed the Authority to treat application for recalling the order as pending and to decide the same in accordance with law

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2008 PLC 280 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Workmens Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), Ss.3 & 19Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Constitutional petitionPayment of wages

Employee having died due to heart attack, son of deceased moved two applications; one under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and other under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Employer filed legal objection against said applications alleging that deceased workman having tendered resignation from service, no relationship of employee and employer existed between deceased and the employer and that duties performed by the deceased being of supervisory nature, he was not a "workman" and application moved by his son was not maintainable

Authority vide impugned order allowed claim of son of deceased and employer was directed to deposit amount of Group Insurance and other legal dues

Son of deceased in his affidavit in evidence had stated that deceased used to work in place of absentee workers and used to repair out of order machines and after removing fault, machines were handed over to the concerned workers; that deceased had no right to hire and fire and that his basic wages were Rs.2645

Such averments of son of deceased having remained unrebutted/unchallenged, it could safely be said that the deceased was "workman"

Employer further contended that Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed with and decide two applications moved by son of deceased under two different laws by the same order

Authority simultaneously was holding the portfolios of Commissioner for Workman's Compensation as well as the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Authority, in circumstances had disposed of both applications together

Labour laws having been enacted for the benefit of workers, in case of death of a worker questions regarding benefits like Groups Insurance, Gratuity and other legal dues were to be settled at the earliest

Widow and other legal heirs of the deceased could not be deprived of their legal dues on technical grounds

No material was placed on record to show that resignation of deceased was accepted by the employer before his death

Relationship of employee and employer, were thus existing between parties, in circumstances.

1998 PLC 285 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 7Payment of wagesDeduction from wagesWages payable to the employees would not necessarily mean earned wagesEmployee was entitled to full wages unless a deduction was permissible under Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Language of S. 7 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was both exacting and pre-emptory which made the legislative intendment clear beyond any doubt

Law would not countenance any deduction in wages unless same was squarely covered by any provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936

Statute which was remedial in its object, has to be construed in a manner so as to advance the remedy and suppress mischief for otherwise it would frustrate the legislative intent.

1998 PLC 282 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

S. 38(3-a)Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 15(2) & 17Payment of wages

Employee approached Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, laying her claim to salary, gratuity as also additional remuneration for the disputed period

Authority recorded evidence of employee on the very day when issues were transacted and evidence of employers was closed only giving them two dates for adducing evidence whereas in its order Authority had stated that many opportunities had been afforded to employers to lead evidence, but on their failure to do so, employee's claim was decreed on the strength of evidence she had led

Authority had not allowed employers to subject employee to cross-examination

Authority, thus, had proceeded against employers and in favour of employee in undue and indecent haste which was not fair

Reasons given by Authority in its judgment were also inadequate as it had merely been stated in it that employee's evidence having remained unrebutted, she had succeeded in establishing her claim, which in fact was not scrutinised by Authority by applying its independent mind

Review application of employers against order passed against them was also rejected by Authority simply on obtaining reply to it from employee and by observing that Authority had no power to review its own orders

Appeal against judgment of Authority was also dismissed by Labour Court in a summary manner

Authority as well as Labour Court, thus, had remained oblivious of the employers case and had shown indulgence to employee

Order passed by Authority as affirmed by Labour Court in appeal was set aside allowing revision petition filed by employers, in circumstances.

1991 PLC 405 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Payment of WagesS.17FactoryAppeal of respondent was allowed by Labour Court against order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act

No evidence had been led by any of parties as to whether respondent was a factory so as to attract applicability of Payment of Wages Act, which was a question of fact

With consent of parties order of Labour Court as well as that of Authority under Payment of Wages Act was set aside and case was remanded to Authority to decide it on merits after allowing parties to adduced evidence on question whether respondent was a factory or not.