Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 2402 1986 SLD 2402 1986 PLC 1038
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. 18 of 1985, decided on 31st July, 1986.
S. 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

MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN, JAMSHORO

VS

Syed MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH, FOREMAN and 3 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)---- ---Ss. 15 & 17--Claim of wages--Application beyond time--Effect-­Appeal--Competency to file--For claim of wages if application was beyond time and Authority failed to condone delay, no appeal, held, would lie against that order--Where, however, delay was condoned, still no appeal would lie against such order--Appeal would be competent only against directions, if any, made under subsections (3) a (4) of S. 15 of Payment of Wages Act. 1984 S C M R 1311 fol. (b) Payment oaf Wages Act (IV of 1936)----- ---Ss. 15 & 17--Claim of Project Allowance--No justification for withholding--Effect--Where Project Allowance was allowed to a number of similar workers by Authority in a number of cases, such direction having been upheld by Appellate Court, there would be, held, no justification in changing such view--Dismissing appeal of establishment Appellate Court directed deposited amount to be paid to employee. M. M. Aqil for Appellant. M. Bashir Awan for Respondents. ORDER Respondents had filed an application under sections 15 and 16 of Payment of Wages Act claiming a sum of Rs.10,720 being project allowance payable to workers for different periods. It has been the contention of the applicants before the learned Authority that similar allowance had already been permitted to other workers firstly by the learned Authority and thereafter by this Court, as specifically specified in the application itself. This claim was resisted on behalf of M.C.P. on many grounds. It was contended that the project allowance was not admissible to the applicants before their regularisation particularly when they had never worked in the workshop and they did not fall in the category of a workman. It was also pleaded that the earlier orders passed were sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court. After evidence, the impugned order was passed which has now been assailed in this appeal. I have accordingly, heard Mr. M.M. Aqil, Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. M. Bashir Awan, counsel for the respondents. I have also considered the factual and legal position involved herein. The main submission, and which has been advanced with sufficient force, by Mr.…
🔒
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