| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 98 1976 SLD 98 1976 PLC 896 |
IIIrd Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 377 of 1974, decided on 2nd January 1975.
SAEED AHMAD, PRESIDING OFFICER
Tajammal Hussain for Appellant. Khaliq Hussain for
Respondent.
Appeal No. 377 of 1974, decided on 2nd January 1975.
SAEED AHMAD, PRESIDING OFFICER
Tajammal Hussain for Appellant. Khaliq Hussain for
Respondent.
Kh. RASHID AHMAD
VS
NAZIR AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1958)---- --- S. 17-Authority taking hasty proceedings and taking evidence-Employer not given proper opportunity of defence-Order of Authority in circumstances, set aside and case remanded for findings on issues framed. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against an order, dated 26th October; 1974, passed by the Authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Lyallpur, whereby the appellant has been directed to make payment of Rs. 2,172 to be paid to the respondents. The appellant runs a concern of Carpet manufacturing. The respondents were his employees. They fled two applications alleging in each case that the employer failed to pay their wages for the last six months. These applications were contested. The plea of the employer was that no wages were due and on the other hand Hashmat Ali, father of the respondents was indebted to him to the tune of Rs. 3,645.80. Issues were framed and the parties were asked to produce evidence. On 23rd September 1974 it was suggested to the lower Court that the case be decided on oath. The suggestion was that Hashmat Ali, the father of the employees, should take an oath of Holy Quran in a Mosque of Jaranwala Town, to the effect that he had not paid anything to the appellant and that the appellant was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,172 to his sons. Both the parties agreed on the prescribed oath. The case was adjourned. On the next date of hearing a dispute arose between the parties as to whether an oath was taken in the prescribed manner or not. Hashmat Ali stated that he had taken oath whereas the appellant stated that be had not taken. As a dispute had arisen, the trial Court, framed the following issue:- "Whether an oath as prescribed in the agreement and in accordance with the orders dated 23rd September 1974, was taken and whether the employer had to pay the disputed amount." On the above issue both the parties adduced oral evidence. Hashmat Ali and his two witnesses stated that oath was taken and in rebuttal four witnesses appeared and they stated that oath was not taken. Both the parties closed their evidence and the case was…
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