Find a Lawyer

Petition No. MN‑229 of 1983, decided on 18th January, 1984.

------S. 15‑Authority‑Not an appellate over punishment deci sions of management ‑ Workman suspended and awarded penalty of censure and forfeiture of wages for suspension period‑Claim before Authority for deducted wages‑Authority, in circumstances, held, rightly refused interference‑Workman, in circumstances, ought to have got set aside order of punishment of forfeiture from competent forum and then could approach Authority with plea that wages bad been illegally deducted.

Petitioner in person.

Kamal Mufti for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th January, 1984.

This revision arises from the order, dated 23rd October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, in its appellate jurisdiction dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

2. On account of some allegations the petitioner was firstly suspended and then was punished with censure and forfeiture of the wages for the period of suspension. The petitioner, thereupon, brought a petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of illegally deducted wages. The learned Authority held that since the petitioner had been punished by the forfeiture of the wages of suspension period, it had no jurisdiction.

3. The learned appellate authority has observed that the petitioner is a civil servant. It has also been remarked that WAPDA is not a factory as it was not proved that 12 :or more persons were employed in the Grid Station where the petitioner was working. It has also been observed that no manufacturing process was being carried on in the Grid Station. The perusal of the written statement shows that no objection that Grid Station was not a factory was raised, although the jurisdiction of the Authority was challenged. As no such objection was raised, the petitioner not being aware of it did not lead any evidence. The learned lower appellate Court thus was not right to hold without objection and evidence that the Grid Station was not a factory.

4. However, this finding of the. learned Courts below is correct that since the wages for the suspension period were forfeited by way of punish ment, the Authority had no jurisdiction in the presence of the punishment. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not the appellate authority over the decisions correct or wrong of the managements of establishments. The petitioner ought to have first got the order of forfeiture set aside from the competent forum and only then he could go to the Autho rity under the Payment of Wages Act with the plea that his wages had been illegally deducted. So far as other emoluments are concerned, there is no evidence that they were due.

5. As a result, I do not find any force in this revision and dismiss it with the observations made above.

A. E. Revision 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.