| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 2074 1985 SLD 2074 1985 PLC 687 |
Authority under payment of Wages Act, 1936
Application No. 34 of 1981, decided on 14th April, 1985.
GHULAM FAROOQ CHANNER, AUTHORITY
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Application No. 34 of 1981, decided on 14th April, 1985.
GHULAM FAROOQ CHANNER, AUTHORITY
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
WAZIR KHAN
VS
MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN
Law:
Section:
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-- -- Ss. 14(vi) do 15-Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S. 2(h)-Driver of Irrigation Department transferred en bloc to M. P. O. WAPDA and from there to Mechanised Construction of Pakistan - A workman and not a civil servant-Gratuity, Provident Fund and Encashment of L. P. R.-Claim regarding-Within jurisdiction of Authority M. C. P. registered under Factories Act, 1934 -Objection that applicant was not working in a manufacturing process, in circumstances, repelled-Gratuity, held, payable as calculated on last pay drawn plus allowances on basis of entire length of service-Provident Fund contributions by employer and encashment of L. P. R., held, payable as per rules of employer establishment. 1979 P L C 384 ; 1983 P L C (C. S.) 822 and 1979 P L C 388 rel. M. Bashir Awan for Applicant. M. M. Aqil for the Opponent. ORDER By this order I will dispose of the application filed by the applicant under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Briefly the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on 1st March, 1960 in the Irrigation Department and was subsequently transferred to M. P. O. WAPDA en bloc and from there, his services were transferred en bloc to M. C. P., the present opponent, being the successor organisation of M. P. O. WAPDA. The applicant was retired on 11th April, 1979 by the opponent-Organisation, who claims the following legal dues :- (i) Gratutiy. Rs. 8,905.67 (ii) Provident Fund. Rs. 4,584.00 (iii) Encashment of L. P. R. Rs. 3,541.25 He also prayed for 10 times compensation thereon. The opponent filed the reply statement and denied the liability of the claim. The following issues were settled :- (1) Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to try this matter ? (2) Whether the application is maintainable in law ? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to relief or any part thereof ? (4) What should the order be ? The parties led their evidence. The applicant examined his Attorney while Mr. Rehman was examined by the opponent. The learned counsel filed written arguments. I have perused the record and arguments and my findings on issues with reason therefore, are as under :- Issue No. I It has been contended on…
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