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.
Constitution Petition No.S‑34 of 1982, decided on 15th March, 1987.
‑‑‑S.15‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art 9‑‑Jurisdiction vesting in Authority under Payment of Wages Act was restrictive in nature and Authority could not determine controversies relating to status of workman concerned‑‑Order passed by Authority, however, showing that the contention raised by petitioners that respondent was essentially an intermittent worker could not be established by them‑‑Authority and Appellate Court without going into controversy as to respondent's status deciding case purely on ground of want of sufficiency of evidence on the point‑‑Impugned order, held, could not call for interference by High Court simply because Authority found evidence of petitioners insufficient.
Ch.Rasheed Ahmad for Petitioner.
M.A. Syed for Respondent No.l.
Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987.
The first Respondent was employed by the petitioners as a pointsman at Sann Railway Station on a salary of Rs.270 per month. The Respondent made an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority appointed thereunder (respondent No. 2), claiming payment from the petitioner in lieu of unavailed holidays and over time work, the total amount thus claimed being Rs.1,759.64. The petitioners in their reply statement took up a plea that the respondent was an essentially intermittent Railway servant and liable to work upto 84 hours in a week and consequently, his claim was not maintainable.
The second respondent however, held that the petitioners had failed to establish that the first respondent was an essentially intermittent Railway servant and consequently, he allowed the claim of the respondent in full together Rs.3,519.28 being compensation at the rate of two times the claim. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the third respondent was also dismissed and the order of the second respondent was upheld.
The only ground urged by Mr. Chaudhry Rashid Ahmad, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the second respondent was not competent to determine any controversy in regard to the status of the first respondent and consequently, the order passed by him was without jurisdiction. However, I find very little substance in the counsel's contention. Although there can be no cavil with the proposition that the jurisdiction vesting in the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is restrictive in nature and the authority cannot determine controversies relating to 'the status of the workman concerned, but the order passed by the second respondent shows that the contention rais9d by the Petitioners that the first respondent was an essentially intermittent worker could not be established 'by them as would appear from the following passage from the order of the authority.
"The contention of the opponent is that the applicant is an "Intermittent" Railway Servant. In support of his contention, he has produced (1) Roster Form (Ex. D‑1) which shows hours of work and periods of rest for pointsmen in which duty hours commence on Sunday and on "Saturday and (2) Ex.D‑2 which is classification schedule showing the classification of different categories of the Railway staff working at different railway stations. The orders declaring the various categories of the staff as "INTERMITTENT" or otherwise as shown in the "schedule" (Ex.D‑3) have not been brought on record in evidence. Besides the authority who issued schedule of classifi cation has not been mentioned either in the evidence or in the arguments by the opponent. The schedule (Ex.D‑3) is only attested copy of schedule signed by an official of Railway whereas original has not been produced in evidence."
It is, therefore, clear that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 decided the case of the first respondent without going into the controversy as to his status but decided the case purely on the ground of want of sufficiency of evidence on the point. Simply because the authority found the evidence adduced by the petitioners insufficient, it cannot call for interference with the impugned order by this Court.
Consequently, I find no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs.
S.Q./P‑10/K./Lb.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer