Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑313 of 1985, decided on 15th December, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Wages‑‑Claim for‑‑Concurrent jurisdiction of Labour Court arid Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑Grievance petition for recovery of wages‑‑Labour Court returning petition for presentation to Authority‑‑Appeal against such order of Labour Court not maintainable‑ Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, treating appeal as revision and setting aside impugned order remanding case to Labour Court for decision on merits.

Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.

Ch. M.A. Ghani for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th December, 1985.

The order, dated 14‑4‑1985 has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition for recovery of wages has been returned to the appellant for presentation to the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act.

2. The ground given by the learned lower Court is that the appeal against the order of the Authority lies to Labour Court. This is not sufficient ground. Since the Labour Courts too have jurisdiction to give direction where any right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award has been infringed the aggrieved party can approach the said Courts for getting remedy. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the Labour Courts, therefore, have concurrent jurisdiction. Right of appeal too is not lost to the unsuccessful party as this Tribunal has appellate jurisdiction over the decision passed by the Labour Courts under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. As a result, the appeal is treated as revision as the appeal 113 does not lie and accepting the revision, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded for decision on merits.

A.E.

Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.