Law:

Section:

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)--- ----Ss. 15(2) & 17---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Ss.1(4), 2(i) & S.O.12(4)---Gratuity, recovery of--- "Workman"--- Determination--- Scope---Respondent/ employee filed application under S.15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for recovery of amount on account of gratuity, claiming that he had served the petitioner company for about 18 years---Petitioner employer company, resisted claim of respondent, on the grounds; that the respondent was not "workman"; that the petitioner company only employed 18 workmen; and that respondent remained in the service of the petitioner company only for seven years---Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 accepted claim of the respondent, and order of authority was upheld by Labour Court---Validity---Witnesses, appearing on behalf of petitioner employer company, stated that respondent employee was a Quality Supervisor---No question or suggestion was put to the petitioner company's witnesses to dislodge their statements that respondent had worked as a Quality Supervisor---Status of respondent as a "workman", as contemplated under S.2(i) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, could not be disputed, but had to be recognized---No documentary evidence was produced to show that power to hire and fire was ever exercised by the respondent---Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as well as Labour Court had rightly held that, the respondent was "workman" and was entitled to receive gratuity---Regarding length of service of the respondent with petitioner's company, respondent produced his Social Security Card and Employees' Old-age Card, showing that respondent remained in service of the petitioner since 1-8-1994 till 31-7-2007, for 13 years---Respondent, in circumstances, was entitled to receive gratuity for 13 years' service---Regarding number of workmen employed in the petitioner company, respondent had asserted that total number of workmen employed by the petitioner company was in excess of 50--No question or suggestion was put to the respondent to shake his said assertion---Stand of…

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