Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Case No. 24 of 1968, decided on 31st October 1968.
--S. 15(2), proviso Act made applicable to employees of Road Transport Corporation H% e. f: 7-1-1966--Claim for deaucted wages relating to year 1965 filed before Commissioner in 1968-Claim, held, time-barred.
--- S. 15-- Worker dismissed and subsequently re-instated Dismissal period treated as leave without pay-Claim for wages of dismissal period-Rejected.
This is an application from Kaka Khan Driver under the Payment of Wages Act against the Road. Transport Corporation; Lahore claiming his deducted wages amounting to its. 2679.00. The following issues were framed :-
(1) Is the application within time O. P. R.
(2) Is the applicant entitled to the following wages
(a) Rs. 1-32 from 10-3-1965 to .31-3-1655.
(b) Rs. 1-50 from 1-4-65 to 25-4-1965.
(c) Rs. 732 from 19-1-63 to 17-7-1965.
(d) Rs. 720 as weekly holiday wages.
(e) Rs. 495 from 17-7-65 to 8-11-65.
(f ) Rs. 452 from 19-1-63 to 30-6-65. O. P. P.
P. W. I Muhammad Shaft produced the record before the Court. He stated that as the petitioner remained absent he was not paid the wages claimed by him. P. W. 2 Bashir Ahmad General Secretary of the Union has stated that the respondent did not pay the wages to the petitioner although he personally approached the authorities and discussed his case with them. P. W. 3 is the petitioner himself who deposed before the Court that the respondent made certain deduction in his wages.
R.W.1 Muhammad Shafie stated before the Court that the Petitioner remained absent during the period which he has Claimed his wages- According to this witness the petitioner was dismissed and was re-instated on an appeal filed by him. His period of absence (luring the dismissal was treated as leave without Pay. The respondent then closed his case. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent filed an application for framing additional issue with regard to the jurisdiction. The following additional issue was framed
(1) Whether the application filed by the petitioner is or is not maintainable under the Payment of Wages Act O. P. P & O. P. R.
The counsel of the parties have argued the case. Full opportunity was given to both parties to assist the Court as question of jurisdiction was involved in the case. The counsel for the respondent has produced a Gazette Notification published in the Gazette dated 7-1-1966 by which the payment of wages has been made applicable to the workers of the Road Transport Corporation. The claim of the petitioner relate to the year 1965 when only the Civil Courts had the jurisdiction to bear applications under the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner did not file the case in the Civil Court. He has approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act after the expiry of about 3 years although the, period of limitation is only six months.
I have studied the case carefully arid I find that the case of the petitioner is badly barred by time. The period of limitation under the Payment of Wages Act is oily 6 months whereas the petitioner has claimed his wages alter three years. I iii respondent has produced evidence to show that the Petitioner was dismissed and when be filed an appeal he was re-instated but was not paid his wages for dismissal period as it was treated as leave without pair, The counsel for the respondent has also raised the, question of jurisdiction as the petitioner was employed in Lyallpur. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear the cases of the, employees of the Road Transport Workers employed in Lyallpur. Moreover there are no sound reasons to condone the long delay.I , therefore, dismiss the application of Kaka Khan for lack of jurisdiction and limitation.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer