Case Details

Citation(s)
1976 SLG 825 1976 SLD 825 1976 PLC 505
National Industrial Relations Commission
Case No. 18(39)/75, decided on 31st July 1975.
MAMOON A. KAZI, SENLOR MEMBER

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

MUHAMMAD BASHIR

VS

MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD.

Law:

Section:

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)­- -- S. 2 (vi) (d)-Wages-Field allowance-Included in basic gross salary according to service certificate-Cannot be excluded from term "wages". ORDER The petitioner was employer as a Surveyor by Sui Northern Gas Pipe­lines Limited (the respondent), which is an essential service. His services were terminated on 23-8-1972, without notice by the respondent, as they were no longer required by the latter. The petitioner received an amount of Rs. 5,880.18 which according to the respondent's calculations wag payable to him by the respondent. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent, the petitioner moved the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for has re-instatement, but ultimately his application was dismissed on the ground that the respondent was an essential service and the jurisdiction of the - Courts under the 1 R.O. was barred. The petitioner has finally filed the instant application before the Commission which falls within the purview of section 6 of the Essential Services Act, inter alia praying for his re-instatement and payment of Rs. 2098.45 which according to the petitioner's calculations are still due to him from the respondent. 2. As far as the question of re-instatement is concerned a copy of the letter (marked as R/1) has been flea by the respondent, which shows that the services of the petitioner were no longer, required by the respondent. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has filed the vacant post in an "unfair and objectionable way." He however failed to substantiate it as he has produced no evidence. The petitioner has filed an "affidavit" in support of his allegations but the same not having been attested cannot lie considered. This leaves us only with the second prayer of the petitioner in respect of his dues. 3. The petitioner has filed a photostat copy of the statement of Accounts (Exh. G) received by him from the respondent which lists the items, showing the amount payable against each one of them, and the total of all the items shown by the respondent is Rs. 6,080.18. After deducting an amount of Rs. 200 which was recoverable from petitioner, a figure of Rs. 5,880.18 has been…
🔒
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