Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1140 1989 SLD 1140 1989 PLC 167
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Petition No. MN-122 of 1987, decided on 17th June, 1987.
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
H.R. Haider for Petitioner. M. Khalid Farooq for
Respondent,

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE (INSPECTION), MULTAN

VS

OCCUPIER/MANAGER, HILAL ENTERPRISES (Pvt.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)-- ---Ss. 15 & 17--Ex parte order--Orders of Authority refusing to set aside ex parte order, not appealable. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)- ---Ss. 35(5) & 38 (3-a)--Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17--Revision-­Appellate order of Labour Court under S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 to be construed as an order under authority given to Labour Court vide S.35(5) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and open to revision before Appellate Tribunal. JUDGMENT In the revision captioned above the order, dated 4-1-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged, reporting that the same is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. 2. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare brought a claim of deducted wages of the workers before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which was decreed ex parte. An application for setting aside ex parte decree was moved by the respondent before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, but that petition was disallowed. The respondent appealed to the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan challenging the decision by which ex parte decree was passed and the order by which application for setting aside ex parte decision had been dismissed. The learned appellate Court has vide the impugned order, dated 4-1-1987 set aside the order, dated 7-4-1986 of the learned Authority on the ground that without inviting reply to the petition and without affording opportunity of evidence the petition could not be accepted. So far as order, dated 1-2-1986 is concerned whereby the ex parte decision was awarded, the learned lower Court has not given any decision. It has been observed that the question of maintainability of the said order will be assessed by the Authority itself meaning thereby that if it is proved that notice was not served upon the respondent, the order will be set aside and the case will be decided afresh. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal against the order, dated 1-2-1986 was time-barred. Since the learned Appellate Court…
🔒
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