Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 538 1988 SLD 538 1988 PLC 236
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeals Nos.263 of 1985 and 22 of 1986, decided on 23rd November, 1986.
GHULAM ABBAS KHAN, 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

DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN and another

VS

INTISAR AHMAD

Law:

Section:

(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-- ---Ss.15 & 17--Factories Act (XXV of 1934), Ss. 2 (i), 2(g) & 80-­Railways Hours of Employment Rules, 1931--Railways Locoshed connected with repair of railway engines, pumping of oil and pumping of water--Such Locoshed, held, would be governed by Factories Act, 1934 excluding applications Railway Hours of Employment Rules, 1931--Overtime wages claimed by Railway employee of Locoshed for working beyond 8 hours a day, held, were rightly accepted by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. (b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)--- ---Ss.15 & 17--Claim before Authority--Objection as to limitation not raised before Authority, held, could not be agitated in Appeal. (c) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-- ---S.15--Compensation and cost of case--Claim straight away made before Authority--No suggestion that recourse made to employer and claimed amount denied by employer--Employer, in circumstances, held, cannot be burdened with any more than actual claim--Claim fo-r--f0 times compensation, held, was rightly disallowed by Authority. JUDGMENT This judgment shall dispose of an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, instituted by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan, to be called appellant, challenging the order of the Authority, Sahiwal, passed by it on 24-7-1985, whereby he has been directed to make payment of Rs. 14,984.I0 as over time wages to Mr. Intisar Ahmad, Wireman Diesel Locoshed, Pakpattan, the respondent. 2. This judgment shall also dispose of an appeal of the respondent under the same law against the same order of the Authority, Sahiwal because of denial of 10 times compensation and cost of the case to the respondent. 3. As the record shows, the respondent is employed in the Locoshed Pakpattan as Wireman Diesel. According to him, the Locoshed Pakpattan falls within the definition of a factory as such under the Factories Act, 1934, the appellant cannot make him work beyond 8 hours a day. The appellant has on the other hand kept him on duty from 1-3-1982 to 14-4-1985 daily for 12 hours. For 4 hours each day spent by the respondent in addition to prescribed working hours,…
🔒
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