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.
Revision Petition No. FD‑2 of 1983, decided on 24th January, 1984.
--‑ Ss. 15 & 16‑Jurisdiction of Authority‑Only in cases of illegal deduction or delayed payment of wages ‑ Cannot go behind reversion order‑Decrease in pay on account of reversion does not amount to illegal deduction‑Workman reverted to lower post on account of retrenchment ‑ Making application to Authority Application accepted‑Labour Court in appeal setting aside order of Authority on ground that wages were not deducted but adjusted under reversion order‑Order of Labour Court challenged in revision before Labour Appellate Tribunal on ground that certificate of deposit of deducted amount not filed with appeal before Labour Court hence same was not competent‑Case, in circumstances, held, not of illegal deduction of wages appeal before Labour Court without such certificate was competent and order of Authority rightly set aside by Labour Court‑industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a).
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioners.
Sh. Aftab Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st January, 1984.
The decision, dated 26th September. 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad in appellate jurisdiction has been challenged in this revision.
2. On account of abolition of some posts, the petitioners were reverted. They challenged the order before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The petition was accepted but in appeal it was rejected on the ground that the order of reversion had not been challenged in the Labour Court and that the wages were not deducted but were ordered to be adjusted,
3. It has been argued by Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz, the learned representative of the petitioners, that since no certificate of the deposit of the deducted amount was filed in the learned lower appellate Court, the very appeal was incompetent. This is correct that without the deposit of the deducted amount, no appeal against the order of the Authority lies but the present case is quite different in its nature. No deduction was made so there were no deducted wages which the respondent had to deposit. Amir Mukhtar, petitioner, stated clearly in cross‑examination that since their pay was not decreased, therefore, they did not prefer any appeal. Since the wages were not decreased, so no question of deduction arises. The appeal before the learned lower appellate Court was, therefore,, competent.
4. Admittedly, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction where wages have been illegally deducted or their payment delayed. Since the petitioners bad been reverted, so even if their pay had been decreased, it could have been said that there was any illegal deduction. The Authority has no jurisdiction to go behind an order of reversion. Such an order can be challenged in the Labour Court if the aggrieved persons are workmen. If the order of reversion had been got set aside and yet deduction had been made, of course, the Authority would have jurisdiction. In the present case neither any deduction had been made, nor any deduction was illegal. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, rightly set aside the order of the learned Authority.
5. As a result, the revision is dismissed.
A. E. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer