Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1603 2011 SLD 1603 2011 PLC 208
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1566 and 1567 of 2009, decision dated: 2-03-2011.
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA AND TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, 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

Messrs INTERTRADE through Owner

VS

FAISAL and 2 others Messrs INTERTRADE through Owner vs FAISAL and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-------Ss. 15 & 17---Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937, R.8---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Payment of wages---Ex parte order---Remedy---Petitioner/employee had terminated services of employee---Authorities 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. Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Hafiz Ahmed and others PLD 1960 Lah. 1179 and Mughal Surgical (Pvt) Ltd. and others v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7 and others 2005 PLC 364 ref. Muhammad Adnan for Petitioners. Rafiullah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th December, 2010. JUDGMENT SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- Facts of C.P. No.D-1566 of 2009 are that…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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