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.
Complaint Case No. 381 of 1970, decided on 19th September 1970.
Ss. 19(1), proviso (2), 25(1)(6) & 35(6) read with Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 15 & 22-Overtime pay-- Claim for-Not maintainable before Labour Court on application under S. 25(1)(6), East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965-Claim regarding payment of wages covered by Payment of Wages Act, 1936-To be decided by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and not by Labour Court not empower ed to act under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
-This is an applica tion under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act; 1065; hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The first party in the present case, was served with a termina tion notice on 15-4-1970. But it is his case that he was not given overtime pay for 1,084 days and proper termination benefits and he has been thus illegally deprived of Rs. 23,745.23 for which he sent grievance notice to the second party. His prayer was rejected. Hence his application in Court for remedy.
The second party contested the case denying the claim. He has been given termination benefits for 90 days and compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for every completed year of service.
His claim for overtime allowance, etc., is not admissible under sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act. The whale petition has been misconceived. It should be dismissed.
The matter was heard at length in presence of the members. It was then submitted that the first party was getting site allow ance at the rate of 10 percent. and Rs. 50.00 as Medical Attend ance Allowance and that this Rs. 84.00, his basic pay being Rs. 340.00, should be multiplied by three for giving him 90 days' notice pay. This amount brings him Rs. 252.00. Apart from this, it was argued that under proviso (2) of subsection (1) of section 19 of the Act he was entitled to receive benefits of over time pay. The counsel for the second party contested this by quoting sections 15 and 22 of the Payment of Wages Act. This Court is not the authority under the said Act and further, it appears that any suit regarding payment of wages under the Act is barred in any other Court specially in matters which could be disposed of under section 15 of that Act before an Authority. It is clear that under section 35 (6) of that Act this Court has no been given any power under the Payment of Wages Act. The matter has been badly barred on that account and it is not admissible as this Court was not the proper forum. It has been stated that the first party has been paid benefits for 39 days' earned leave. So on that account also he has been satisfied. The compensation or gratuity as it may be called, has been given under section 19 of the Act. So only an amount of Rs. 252.00 is due to him. So on hearing both the sides at length and on examining the documents we find that only Rs. 252.00 is payable to the first party. The rest of the claim appears to be inadmis sible as this Court was not the proper forum for the purpose and that some of the items are misconceived claims.
Hence this petition, except on the above observations is dismissed on contest. However, the second party is directed to pay Rs. 252.00 to, the first party within thirty days from this date.
The members have agreed with my above opinion.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer