Law:

Section:

Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-- ---Ss. 15 & 17--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3-a)-Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 17(1-B)--WAPDA employee--Jurisdiction of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936--Claim for wages of suspension period--Authority allowing claim and appeal against order of Authority dismissed--Contention that matter related to terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employee declared as a civil servant hence was not within jurisdiction of Authority--No terms and conditions produced showing in what circumstances employee could be suspended and in what circumstances he was entitled to wages after reinstatement--Order of Authority set aside in revision by Labour Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Appellate Court for decision afresh after opportunity of evidence to parties on point of existence or non-existence of terms and conditions of service regarding suspension and wages of suspension period--Court below should have first decided whether any question of terms and conditions of service was involved and only then question whether Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was applicable and Authority had jurisdiction could be finally decided. 1978 P L C 305 and 1988 P L C (C.&) 241 ref. Amanullah Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Ch. Riaz Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1988. JUDGMENT This is a revision reporting that the order dated 30-3-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. 2. The facts are that the respondent was suspended from service and when he was reinstated question arose about allowing him wages for the period of suspension. He filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, which was accepted and the petitioner went in appeal which was dismissed Two points have been argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. One is that the. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction and the other is that since the respondent was not honorably acquitted from the case of corruption but only benefit of doubt was given, he was rightly not…

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