Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑559 of 1981/Pb., decided on 5th March, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑S. 25‑A read with Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 16 Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑ Special law ‑ Has preference‑over general law ‑ Workman dismissed from service ‑ Re‑instated by appellate authority and intervening period treated as leave without pay‑Grievance petition claiming such back benefits, in circumstances, held, rightly not entertained by Labour Court‑Such dispute, held, within jurisdiction of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 being special form.

P L D 1976 Lah. 528 and P L D 1964 S C 673 rel.

Malik Ghulam Rasool for Appellant

Amir‑ud‑Din for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 5th March, 1983.

This appeal has been preferred against the decision dated 26‑10‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant, in which he had challenged his transfer from Saddar Depot to Bagh Depot and refusal to award back benefits, was dismissed.

2. The appellant was dismissed from service. On appeal he was re‑instated but the period he remained out of service was treated as leave without pay. The appellant in his grievance petition claimed both the reliefs i.e. back benefits and retransfer to Saddar Depot. The learned lower Court has found that in the grievance notice the transfer was not challen ged, meaning that no grievance notice with regard to transfer was given. So petition against the transfer was not competent. On the point of back benefits the learned lower Court has held that the Payment of Wages Act being special enactment has preference over general law i.e. Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. If transfer had been challenged in the grievance notice, of course, the petition would have been com petent before the Labour Court as the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction. But the dispute of back benefits can only be heard and decided by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, it being a special forum for that purpose. P L D 1976 Lahore 528 which reliance was laced upon P L D 1964 S C 673 (2) supports this to placed upon view.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

Appeal 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.