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.
Constitutional Petition No.S‑40 of 1983, decided on
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 15 & 17‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.10‑C‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Wrong conclusion of fact by competent forum, whether, a ground for challenge in constitutional petition‑‑Bonus payment claimed before Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑Claim not accepted and decision of Authority was upheld in appeal by Appellate Forum‑‑Authority and Appellate Forum coming to concurrent finding on assessment of evidence that it was not proved that profits had been earned during period involved hence claim was not sustainable‑‑Plea in constitutional petition that it was for respondent employer to establish that no profit was earned repelled‑ Held: Merely because both Courts below came to a wrong conclusion of a cannot provide a ground for challenge in constitutional petition.
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S.15‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑ Order of Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 rejecting claim for over‑time wages passed after considering evidence produced by parties could not be termed as without lawful authority or without jurisdiction‑‑Interference refused by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
Talmiz S. Burney for Petitioner.
S.S. Jehangir Khan for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing:
The petitioner was employed with the respondent No.1 on 1‑4‑1975 and his services were terminated on 7‑4‑1980. He served a notice under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but did not proceed further and filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming Rs.29,275, the details of which are as follows:‑‑
| (1) | Cost of Living Allowance from 16‑6‑1979 to 27‑4‑1980 and for May, 1980. | Rs. 1,265 |
| (2) | Overtime from 1‑4‑1975 to 27‑4‑1980 at the rate of Rs.240 per month. | Rs. 14,640 |
| (3) | Bonus for 5 years from 1975 to 1980. | Rs. 5,130 |
| (4) | Arrears of wages from 16‑4‑1980 to 31‑5‑1980. | Rs. 1,400 |
| (5) | Encashment of 5 years casual leave etc. | Rs. 6,040 |
| Total: | Rs. 28,475 |
The respondent No.2 by order, dated 12‑6‑1982 granted the application to the extent of Rs.16,955. The amounts item-wise allowed were as follows:‑‑
| (1) | C.L.A. from 16‑6‑1979 to 27‑4‑1980. | Rs. 1,155 |
| (2) | Overtime from 1‑4‑1975 to 31‑5‑1977. | Rs. 6,240 |
| (3) | Overtime from 1‑6‑1977 to 27‑4‑1980. | Rs. 8,400 |
| (4) | Wages from 16‑4‑1980 to 27‑4‑1980. | Rs. 440 |
| (5) | One month earned leave. | Rs. 720 |
| Total: | Rs. 16,955 |
Both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 filled appeal separately which were heard by respondent No.3 and by the impugned order he granted Rs.3,594 as follows:--
| (1) | C.L.A. from | Rs. 1,115 |
| (2) | Wages from | Rs. 440 |
| (3) | Notice pay for the month of May 1980. | Rs. 720 |
| (4) | One moth earned leave. | Rs. 720 |
| Total: | Rs. 2,995 |
Compensation at the rate of 20% of the total amount.
Rs. 599
--------------
Rs. 3,594
---------------
Mr. Burney, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claim for bonus was covered by section 10‑C of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and it was for the respondent No.1 to establish that no profit was earned by it. In this regard on assessment of evidence produced before respondent No.2 both the authorities below have come to the concurrent finding that it has not been proved that respondent No.1 had earned any profit during the period for which the bonus has been claimed by the petitioner. In view of this finding the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained as condition precedent for grant of bonus under section 10‑C that employer should have earned profits has not been established. Merely because both the authorities below have come to a wrong conclusion of fact cannot provide a ground for challenging the same in constitutional petition.
The next contention of Mr. Burney is that the petitioner's claim for overtime should have been allowed and that the same has been rejected without considering the evidence on record. This can hardly constitute a ground for challenging the impugned order as it seems I that the order has been passed after considering the evidence, documentary as well as oral produced by the parties. The petitioner has not specified any where the period for which he has demanded overtime and has claimed at the flat rate of Rs.240 per month for the entire period of service. From the evidence it seems that from time to time overtime was paid to the petitioner. This finding of respondent No.3 cannot be assailed and cannot be termed as without lawful authority or without jurisdiction. No other point was pressed. The petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
A.E./R‑4/K
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer