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-110 and 111 of 1978, decided on 29th May, 1978.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-----
---Ss.7(2) & 15(3) & S.O.10(2)--Penalties and procedure--Non-payment of wages to workers--Two challans put up by Labour Officer--Labour Court on basis of statement of a person not holding power-of-attorney from Proprietor of establishment passing conviction order and imposed fine o Rs.100 in each challan--Conviction on basis of statement of such person, held, not valid--Violation of S.0.10(2) punishable with a total fine of Rs.100 only under S.7(3)--Order of Labour Court imposing maximum fine in each challan further held contravention of low Ardor of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal--Revision--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3-a).
M.S. Bokhari for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 29th May, 1978.
These are revision petitions against the order, dated 12-2-1978 of Punjab Labour Court, No. 2, Lahore.
2. There are about 243 workers working in the petitioner's factory The Labour Officer visited the factory in the month of November, 1977 and found that the wages for the month of October were not paid to the workers uptil 7th of November, 1977. He submitted 41 challans in one case and 42 challans in the other case. In each challan he prosecuted the management for non-payment to three workers in time, which was in violation of Standing Order. 10(2) of the W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which is punishable under section 7(2) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Before the Labour Court one Mr. Abdul Hamid appeared, who stated that he had been authorised by Mr. Tufail Muhammad Malik, petitioner to make a statement that the petitioner was prepared to pay the minimum fine within four days. The learned Labour Court on the basis of that statement imposed the fine of Rs.100 in each challan.
3. Against the above order, the petitioner has preferred these revision petitions.
4. In the first case the revision is with respect to 41 challans Nos. 1793 to 1833 and the second revision is with respect to challans Nos.1834 to 1874. Since the point of law involved in both these revision petitions is the same, they will be disposed of together by one order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Mr. Abdul Hamid did not hold any power-of-attorney on behalf of the petitioner and as such the petitioner could not have been convicted in his absence.
6. On going through the record I find that the contention of the learned counsel has great force, because how could the petitioner have been convicted of a criminal offence on a statement of another person pleading guilty, when he did not hold any power-of-attorney on his behalf. I also find that the violation of Standing Order 10(2) is punishable with a total fine of Rs.100 only as prescribed in section 7(2), but in this case the maximum amount of the fine has been imposed in each of the challans, which is a clear contravention of the law.
7. In the result I accept both the revision petitions and set aide the orders of the Labour Court.
A. B.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer