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. FD‑206, decided on 23rd June, 1986
‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Claim to benefits on self sought retirement‑‑Claim to ten months' wages in addition to benefits as per agreement of employer and employee granted by Authority‑‑Explicit finding, held, was required to be recorded in respect of agreement relating to aim of employee for ten months additional pay‑‑Question to be considered was whether employee would be entitled to such benefits even though he had sought retirement only 14 days earlier than specified date from which such entitlement would have been justified‑-‑Labour Courts decision to remand case to Authority for determination of entitlement to additional benefit upheld by Labour Appellate Tribunal.
‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Time spent in pursuing remedy in wrong Court, computation of‑‑S. 14. Limitation Act, held, would apply only, where period spent was sought to be excluded, consumed in Court, lacked jurisdiction in proceedings‑ Labour Court was justified, in by excluding time spent in proceedings of review application which was not competent.
1981 P L C 514 ref.
Muhammad Ashraf, Representative for Petitioner
Shamim Ahmad Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1986.
The revision captioned above reports that the decision dated 5‑4‑1986 recorded by learned Court No.4, Faisalabad in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is wrong and of no legal effect.
2. The learned lower Court excluded the period spent by the respondent in persuing the review petition before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, treated the appeal as within time and remanded the case to the learned Authority for framing issue on the point whether it was a case of delayed or deducted wages and directed the Authority to record decision thereon and to re‑decide the all case issue‑wise. The facts are that the petitioner sought retirement which was allowed and he on 4‑2‑1984 applied for the benefits which were given to him. An agreement was executed between the management and the union that the persons who would tender resignations up to 18‑2‑1984 would be allowed 10 months wages in addition to other benefits. The petitioner claimed the said benefit also in his petition. The learned Authority has allowed the said benefit also to the petitioner but has not discussed the agreement nor has examined the point whether the petitioner was justified in claiming the same, sc much so that even the date of the agreement and its terms are not given in the judgment. An explicit finding was to be recorded in respect of the agreement so far as the claim of the petitioner to 10 months additional pay under the agreement is concerned. If the date of the agreement in reality 18‑2‑1984 and the condition was the only those persons would be entitled to the said benefit who were in service on the said date and had voluntarily resigned, the question was to be considered whether the petitioner was entitled to the said benefits even though he had sought retirement 14 days earlier and had taken away his benefits. So far the decision of the said point, also the case needs remand. So the order of remand was justified.
3. It has been argued that the learned appellate Court erred in excluding the period spent by the respondent in persuing his review petition inasmuch as there is no provision for revision in Payment of Wages Act. If there had been such a provision of course section 14 would not have been applicable, because the Authority would have been competent to decide the matter. Section 14 applies only where the Court lacks jurisdiction in the proceedings the period spent in which is sought to be excluded. It does not appear from the facts of the case that the respondent with some ulterior motive or with mala fide intention brought the review petition. Obviously under the wrong legal advice the review petition was filed, as there was no provision under the Payment of Wage Act. As there can be no other reason for a review petition, it is presumed that the step was taken under a wrong legal advice. The period spent during the review proceedings is not B considerable. It amounts to about three months only. Under these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in applying section 14 of the Limitation Act and excluding the time spent in the proceedings of the review petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1981 P L C 514 and has argued that section 14 is not applicable in such cases. No doubt, the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal has said so but it may be said that the civil suit was brought in that case by the worker with not a bona fide intention. It has been observed in the ruling that it was known to the worker that he was a workman and he could not bring a civil suit. In the present case the respondent was advised wrongly that a review petition lay, therefore, he instead of directly challenging the order of the Authority under appeal first he brought the review petition.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the revision and dismiss the same.
A. A.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer