Find a Lawyer

Application No. 420 of 1969, decided on 18th March 1970.

, S. 34 ‑---Wages‑Claim on account of deducted wages‑Application, held, not maintainable under S. 34‑Remedy, in such cases, to be sought under Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 15.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner.

Naseer‑ul‑Hassan for Respondent.

Mr. Muhammad Suleman, General Secretary, Road Trans port Corporation, Labour. Union (Regd.), Lahore, is present for the petitioner. Mr. Abdul Rashid Clerk, Road Transport Corporation. Lahore is present for the respondent today in the place of Mr. Naseer‑ul‑Hassan, although his own name has not been mentioned in the letter of authority issued in favour of Mr. Naseer‑ul‑Hassan, by the Secretary Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz, who has previously been appearing for the petitioner, is also not present in the Court.

The Representatives of both parties have stated in the Court today that the subject‑matter of this application is still under discussion between the Road Transport Corporation Labour Union (Regd.), Lahore and the Chairman of the Road Transport Corporation and it is expected that a satisfactory compromise will be arrived at in the near future. However, I can case no justification for keeping this application pending indefinitely in my own Court. In my considered opinion this is a case in which the wages payable to the petitioner have been deducted by the ooh respondent on the ground that the petitioner absented himself "' from duty on two days during the month of September 1969‑i.e. the 11th September and the 14th September (Sunday) 1969‑ without the prior permission of the respondent. According to section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which is still in force ail claims arising out of deductions made from wages have to be adjudicated by a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer appointed by the Provincial Government to hear and decide such claims for any specified area. In view of this circumstance this application is note maintainable in the present Labour Court under section 34 the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, particularly when the petitioner has not stated explicitly in his application that any right guaranteed to him by or under any law for the time being in force has been violated by the respondent in this case. Both parties are of course; free to work out a suitable com promise. For the above‑stated reasons this application is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.