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.
Petition No.SG‑120 of 1984, decided on 3rd December, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss.7 to 13, 15 & 17‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a)‑‑Jurisdiction of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑ Wages for overtime and weekly holidays‑‑Employer challenging entitlement of petitioner before Authority‑‑Overtime taken proved‑‑Authority allowing compensation‑‑Labour Court in appeal disallowing compensation on grounds that Authority had no jurisdiction‑‑Appellate order of Labour Court set aside in revision by Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Held: Petitioner having proved overtime work had become entitled to wages for overtime and non‑payment and contesting right of petitioner to such wages amounted to illegal deduction hence Authority had jurisdiction to award compensation.
Petitioner in person.
Pervez Alamgir for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th November, 1984.
The decision, dated 21‑2‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is reported to be of no legal effect.
2. The learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act allowed Rs. 9,620 as wages of overtime and for weekly holidays. Compensation at two times was allowed. The learned lower appellate Court has disallowed the compensation on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction. No reason has been given. Since the respondent challenged the entitlement of the petitioner to the wages of overtime and weekly holidays, so this was not a case of delayed wages but of deducted wages. It was proved that overtime was taken. This being so, the petitioner had A become entitled to wages for overtime and their non‑payment and contesting the right to the said wages clearly show that wages were deducted. This deduction is not covered by sections 7 to 13, thus it amounted to illegal deduction. Needless to say that in the case of illegal deduction the Authority has jurisdiction to award compensation upto ten times. So, the Authority acted within its jurisdiction, in awarding compensation. However, there appears to be no good ground for two times compensation. In my view one time's compensation will be adequate to meet the ends of justice.
3. I, accordingly, accept the revision and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower appellate Court, modify the order of the Authority by allowing only one time's compensation to the petitioner.
A. E.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer