| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 2148 1986 SLD 2148 1986 PLC 615 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Petition No. RI-406 of 1985, decided on 23rd December, 1985.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Petition No. RI-406 of 1985, decided on 23rd December, 1985.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI,
VS
NAZIR AHMAD
Law:
Section:
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-- ---Ss. 7 & 15--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3-a)--Jurisdiction of Authority--Deducted or delayed wages-Workman convicted on charge of theft and dismissed from service--On appeal against conviction order case remanded to criminal Court and said Court charge-sheeting workman under S.411 Penal Code, 1860 for keeping stolen property in his possession knowingly that same was stolen-Case property not produced hence workman acquitted by criminal Court--Workman re-instated but intervening period treated as leave due-Workman claiming wages for such period and Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 accepting claim and order of Authority upheld by Labour Court in appeal--Plea in Revision before Labour Appellate Tribunal that (i) matter was not within jurisdiction of Authority as amount of wages for disputed period could not be delivered by Authority but by Labour Court, and (ii) workman was not honourably acquitted as such could not claim wages for intervening period--Plea rejected and revision dismissed--Held: (i) Authority has to deliver deducted and delayed wages and for doing so period of deducted wages comes under jurisdiction of Authority, and (ii) since case property was not produced at trial and got identified to be stolen property it could not be said that it was stolen property and accused had kept same in his possession with that knowledge and accused having not been proved to be connected with alleged offence it could not be said that offence stood proved hence it was not an acquittal on account of any doubt but honourable. Sh. Abdul Jabbar for Petitioner. Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1985. JUDGMENT The decision, dated 3-8-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7 Gujranwala in its appellate jurisdiction and the order, dated 12-12-1984 passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act are reported to be wrong. 2. The facts are that the respondent was convicted by the criminal Court for the theft of 18 pieces of copper from the vehicle of Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah Cantt. He was sentenced to 2 months R.I.…
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