| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 1809 1985 SLD 1809 1985 PLC 373 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. 42 of 1984, decided on 3rd January, 1985.
NASIR HUSSAIN, JAFRI, PRESIDING OFFICER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. 42 of 1984, decided on 3rd January, 1985.
NASIR HUSSAIN, JAFRI, PRESIDING OFFICER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF SIND
VS
NAWAB KHAN and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)---- ---S.15--Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S.2(j)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.2(xxviii)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)--Jurisdiction of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936- Limited to workman employed in a Factory or other organization to which provisions of Factories Act, 1934 specifically extended --Chowkidar in establishment of Electric Inspector, Government of Sind--Neither a workman nor such establishment a Factory--Authority, held, could not exercise jurisdiction on application of Chowkidar regarding wages claimed. 1981 P L C 741 rel. 1980 P L C 7 ref. (b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)----- ---S.15--Relief not claimed--Cannot be granted. Muhammad Bashir Awan for Appellant. Yawar Hussain for Respondent No.1. ORDER This appeal is directed against order dated 6-11-1984 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad whereby the learned Authority directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.14,699 for payment to the respondent. 2. The respondent was said to be working as Chowkidar in the appellant's establishment. He filed an application before the learned Authority claiming a sum of Rs.9,416 + 10-times penalty. His claim in nutshell was that he was not paid increments since July, 1981 and was also refused overtime from May, 1981. This claim of the respondent was resisted on behalf of the appellant and in its reply statement while denying the claim of the respondent it was pleaded that no overtime was permissible to the employees serving in the appellant's establishment it being a Government Department increments were duly allowed and paid to him as permissible under the rules. 3. On the basis of the pleadings the learned Authority struck the following two issues: (1) Whether the claim of the applicant is entertain-able or part thereof? (2) What should the order be? (4) After the evidence the learned Authority allowed the claim of the respondent /applicant by the impugned order and which has now been assailed in this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Bashir Awan, Advocate for the Appellant, and Mr.…
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