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.
Petitions Nos. LHR‑345 and 346 of 1982, decided on 28th January, 1984.
‑‑ S. 15 ‑ Jurisdiction of Authority ‑ Incorrect fixation of pay resulting in illegal decrease ‑ Amounts of illegal deduction ‑Authority, in circumstances, held, has jurisdiction to fix pay correctly and direct payment accordingly.
Writ Petition No. 1614 of 1978 and 1977 S C M R 403 distinguished.
L L C 195‑60 Kar. 73 rel.
Muhammad Anwar Lodhi for Petitioner.
Addul Latif for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1984.
As the cases of both the petitioners are identical, both the revisions are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The pay scales were revised and the pay of the petitioners was fixed. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the fixation and claiming that the wages had been deducted brought petitions to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Authority accepting the petitions and granted the relief. In the appeal, the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore held that the Authority had no jurisdiction and thus dismissed the petitions lodged under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, leaving the petitioners to seek remedy in the competent Court. The learned lower appellate Court relied upon the decision of the High Court, Lahore recorded in Writ Petition No. 1614 of 1978 and on 1977 S C M R 403. Both the rulings are not germane to the point involved in the present cases. No question whether the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had or had not jurisdiction, was involved. So far as Writ Petition No. 1614 of 1978 is concerned, the point involved was whether the difference between 40% and 36% allowance amounted to illegal deduction and the employees were entitled to ten times' compensation. It was held that non‑fixation of pay correctly in the beginning amounted to unlawful deductions and thus the employees were entitled to ten times' compensation in the Supreme Court's ruling, the pay had been fixed and the employees had been receiving it for one year and, thereafter brought petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming additional ad hoc relief as was allowed to the Government servants. It was held that the employees could not claim ad hoc relief under the direction of the Government, but were bound by the agreement that had been made by opting to the new scales. If pay is not fixed correctly, resulting in illegal decrease, it would amount to illegal deduction and the Authority has jurisdiction to fix the pay correctly and direct the payment accordingly. L L C 195‑60 Kar. 73 may be cited with great advantage. Wages for the period from 1st December, 1966 to 1st June, 1969 were correctly fixed according to the new scales as admitted in the written statement but in spite of it they were not paid accordingly. The difference amounts to clear illegal deduction. The pay from 1st June, 1970 onward was incorrectly fixed.
3. As a result, I accept both the revisions and‑ setting aside the decisions of the learned lower appellate Court, restore those of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer