Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 1116 1987 SLD 1116 1987 PLC 301
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. S-81 of 1985, decided on 9th November. 1986.
MAMOON KAZI, J

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

VS

Mst. ZAREENA SEGUM and others

Law:

Section:

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-- ---S. 15--Wages--Compensation--Wages not on account of deductions-­--Authority, held, not empowered to award compensation at ten times of amount claimed--Order of Authority passed otherwise declared erroneous. Choudhry Rashid Ahmed for Petitioner. Abdul Razzak Puri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th November, 1986. JUDGMENT The facts of the case are, that one Ishrat Ali predecessor-in­-interest of the respondents in this petition was employed by the Pakistan Railways, the petitioner, as engine driver. He retired from service on 16-7-1981 at the age 58 years and two months, although the age of superannuation for the employees of Pakistan Railways was sixty years. Be that as it may, the said Ishrat Ali preferred a claim before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred as "the authority") for Rs.6,688.70 as wages due but not paid by the employer and 85.5,355 as due on account of future wages. The petitioner resisted the claim, however, the authority vide its order, dated 22-9-1984, allowed the same in full and ordered the petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs.9,060 to the aforesaid employee together with Rs.72,480 "as compensation equal to 8 times the deducted wages". The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the learned Vth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, who dismissed the appeal by its order, dated 24-9-1985 and upheld the order passed by the authority and hence this petition. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Purl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents. The only contention raised by Mr. Ch. Rashid Ahmed is that the authority as well as the learned Labour Court have committed an error by awarding compensation equal to eight times the wages claimed by the employees, as according to the learned counsel, the wages were not claimed by him on account of deductions made by the petitioner but the same were claimed as delayed wages. Reference in this connection has been made to the prayer in the application made by the respondents' predecessor before the authority whereby wages had been claimed as "delayed wages". This factual…
🔒
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