Find a Lawyer

Revision No. LHR‑15 of 1983, decided on 13th August, 1983.

Ss. 1 (4) & 15 read with Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S. 2 (j) & (g) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a)‑Jurisdiction of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑No proof that applicant before Authority employed in a factory but employed in office as store keeper and no evidence that store situated within any premises wherein any manufacturing process carried on‑Authority accepting application and Labour Court dismissing appeal‑Orders of Authority and Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside in revision jurisdiction by Labour Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Authority to decide question of jurisdiction after opportunity of evidence to parties on point whether applicant employed at a place covered by definition of factory under Factories Act, 1934.

Asghar Mahmood for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 9th August, 1983.

The revision captioned above arises from the decision, dated 4th January, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of deducted wages was dismissed.

2. The respondent has resigned from his post, The resignation was accepted. He then brought application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of Rs. 30,641.46 as deducted wages with ten time's compensation totaling Rs. 3,06,414.60.

3. An objection was raised about the jurisdiction of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter to be describes as the Authority) to adjudicate upon the dispute and issue No. I was framed in that respect which was found in favour of the respondent, There is no material on the record to justify to say that the Authority had jurisdiction. The Payment of Wages Act applies, according to section 1(4), to the persons employed in a factory. Factory has been defined in section 2(j) of the Factories Act. The definition of the factory means "any premises including the precincts thereof in any part of which manufacturing process is being carried on." Manufacturing process is defined in section 2(g) of the said Act. The respondent was not employed in any factory but in a store of office as store keeper. There is no evidence if the store is situated within any premises wherein any manu facturing process is being carried on and that the store has any connection with the said manufacturing process. The ground given by the Authority for holding that it has jurisdiction is that the parties have their offices at Lahore and that in many cases wherein the petitioner was a party it was held that the Act applied and that the decisions were upheld in appeals. This ground is no reason to hold that the act applies. Having offices at Lahore is no ground relevant to the point in issue. The factum that the petitioner being a party to the cases wherein the decision that the Act applies was upheld is not sufficient. As observed above what is to be seen is whether the respondent is employed at a place which may be covered by the definition of the factory. Both the parties did not lead any A evidence germane to the issue. It is, therefore, necessary that they be afforded opportunity to produce evidence on the point for the correct decision of the issue.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the revision and setting aside the impugned decisions of the Courts below, remand the case to the Authority for the re‑decision of the whole case after affording opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on issue No. 1. It will be the discretion of the Authority to allow the parties to produce further evidence on the other issues.

A. E. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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