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. LBR‑60 of 1983, decided on 29th July, 1984.
‑‑‑ Ss. 15 & 17 ‑‑ Jurisdiction of Authority ‑ Admissibility of particular wages not declared by competent authority ‑‑ Authority would have no jurisdiction‑Railway employee claiming wages for weekly holidays ‑ Not declared to be a continuous worker by competent authority so as to be entitled to such wages‑Authority, in circumstances, held, had no jurisdiction because no question of deducted or delayed wages arose in absence of declaration by competent authority‑Order of Labour Court in appeal holding that Authority had no jurisdiction upheld in revision by Appellate Tribunal‑Tribunal, further held, as revisional authority from order passed either under S. 15 or S. 17 had no jurisdiction to say whether such employee was or not a continuous worker---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a).
Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
Hamid Mahmood Malik for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 22nd July, 1984.
The revision captioned above gives information that the orders, dated 15th April, 1982 and 5th February, 1983 are void. The payer is to set aside the same.
2. The petitioner claimed wages for weekly holidays. The respondent treats him as an intermittant worker and thus does not allow him weekly holidays. The petitioner claims to be continuous worker and since no weekly rests are allowed to him, he claims overtime wages for the said days. This is not the case of the petitioner that he was ever allowed weekly rest and that afterwards was denied. Unless he gets declaration that he is a continuous worker and is entitled to rest and it rest is not given, he is entitled to wages for overtime, he cannot go to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to give a declaration that a particular category of worker is or is not a continuous worker. Since the petitioner is not being treated as a continuous worker unless a declaration is issued by some competent authority to treat him as such, he neither can claim rest nor can say that wages not paid to him for those days amounts to deduction of wages. Needless to say that the Authority under the payment of Wages Act has jurisdiction only when right to get wages is admitted or have declared by some competent authority and yet deduction is made which is not warranted by the Payment of Wages Act. The learned lover appellate Court has rightly observed that no question of deducted or delayed wages arises and, therefore, the Authority had no jurisdiction. In the capacity of revisional authority from an order passed either under section 15 or section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, it is not within my jurisdiction to say whether the petitioner is or is not continuous worker. So only this much can be said at this stage that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
A. B.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer