Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision No. LHR‑375 of 1985, decided on 21st December, 198
‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑Back benefits‑‑Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal not passing any order with regard to back benefits‑‑Question to be decided by employer and not by Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1985.
The order, dated 28‑9‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act as appellate authority is reported to be wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 7‑6‑1981. Her grievance petition was dismissed by the learned lower Court but her appeal was accepted. She was directed to be re‑instated in service. No order as to back benefits was passed. The petitioner brought a petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and then appeal under section 17 without success. The ground on which the petitioner failed is that this Tribunal did not allow her back benefits. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner did not claim back benefits but wages on the ground that she had been going on duty but was not allowed to work. The argument is devoid of force. This is true that no decision was recorded whether she was or was not entitled to back benefits but the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act could grant relief if back benefits had been allowed by this Tribunal and had not been paid by the respondent. Railway authorities have to decide if on re‑instatement the employee is or is not entitled to back benefits. The petitioner, therefore, instead of applying under section 15, should have asked her employer to decide the question of he entitlement to back benefits. Anyhow so far as her petition given under, section 15 and appeal under section 17 are concerned, they were rightly dismissed.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.
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