| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2258 2001 SLD 2258 2001 PLC 707 |
Sindh High Court
Before Faiz Muhammad Qureshi and Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, JJd Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 254 and 255 of 1992, decision dated: 21st March, 2001
FAIZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Before Faiz Muhammad Qureshi and Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, JJd Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 254 and 255 of 1992, decision dated: 21st March, 2001
FAIZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY ENGINEERING DIVISION, MALKI THATTA
VS
SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) --Ss. 2(vi) & 3 Responsibility for payment of wages "Employer" which includes the person responsible for the supervision and the control of the industrial establishment should be responsible for the payment to the persons employed by him of all wages required to be paid under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. (b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) - Ss. 2(vi)(a)(c), 3, 15, 16 & 17 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional petition Payment of House Rev and Conveyance Allowance Benefits/House Rent and Conveyance Allowance, claimed by the employees before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 were covered by the definition of "wages" as contained in S.2(vi)(a) & (c) of said Act Authority, in circumstances, had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter Adjudication was competently made by the Authority after recording the evidence wherein the parties were given full opportunity to lead their evidence Judgments of the Authority and other forums were well reasoned and based on evidence on record Employees who were work charged employees having specifically been excluded from the purview of "civil servants" both the forums had rightly exercised their jurisdiction in the matter In absence of any illegal exercise of jurisdiction, concurrent s of forums below could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. 2000 PLC 383 and Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division Pak (PWD), Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others 1996 PLC 385 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art. 199 Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court Scope Interference in Constitut:.;,nal jurisdiction was permissible only where subordinate Court or Tribunal either had exercised jurisdiction which it did not possess or had exceeded its jurisdiction or had failed to exercise jurisdiction required to be exercised or in exercise of its jurisdiction had acted with material irregularity, rendering its order without lawful authority. (d) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973) S. 2(1)(b)(ii) Work charged employees Status Work charged employees being not civil servants were excluded from the purview…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492