Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.l of 1985, decided on 20th April, 1987.

---Preamble, Ss.15 & 17--Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S.2--Application of Payment of Wages Act, 1936--Sweeper of an establishment whether covered by Payment of Wages. Act, 1936--Payment of Wages Act, held, applies only to classes of persons employed in industry and those who work in manufacturing process--Sweeper working in an industrial establishment was not employed in industry for the purpose of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 .or working in manufacturing process to bring himself within purview of the Act which was intended for the benefit of only certain classes of persons in industry--Appeal being not maintainable on point of jurisdiction was dismissed in circumstances.

P L D 1964 Kar. 569 and A I R 1921 Mad. 620 ref.

Naseem Mirza, Representative for Applicant.

Muhammad Humayun and Fareedul Haq for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20th April, 1987.

Learned counsel Mr. Humayun has questioned the maintainability of appeal on the ground that the applicant who is aggrieved against the order of Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, is not covered by the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Mr. Humayun has rightly taken this position of law.

Preamble of Act No. IV of 1936 known as the Payment of Wages Act refers as follows:-

"Whereas it is expedient to regulate the payment of wages to certain classes of person employed in an industry. It is hereby enacted as follows; Section I reads:

With the title and commencement of application, further refers that it extends to the whole of Pakistan and subsection (4) reads that it applies in the first instance of the payment of wages to the persons employed in any factory and to persons employed (otherwise than in factory) upon Railway by Railway administration or either directly or through some contractor by a person fulfilling a contract with Railway administration.

The factory has been defined in the Factory Act, means, any premises including the precincts, whereon 20 or more workers are working or were working on any day of the preceding 12 months and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with aid of power or is ordinarily carried on but does not include minor subject to the Minor Act. In view of this definition under the Payment of Wages Act, it follows that this act, applies only to classes of persons employed in industry and those who work in manufacturing process. In the present case, the learned authority has not drawn its attention to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act whether the learned authority possessed the jurisdiction to deal with the case of a sweeper who may be working in Pakistan Machine Tool Factory but is not employed in industry for the purpose of the meaning or the Payment of Wages Act or who is working in manufacturing process to bring himself within the purview of the Act which is intended for the benefit of only certain classes of persons in industry. However the learned authority dismissed his claim directing to take the legal entitlement of the dues which the respondent had deposited, in the absence of his failure to produce the relevant data to which he had quarrelled with the deposited claim. As this Appellate jurisdiction is not going into this question by reference to the fact of the jurisdiction aspect that the Payment of Wages Act is not applicable to him, the appellant has only forum, either to pursue his remedy, what the law suggests him or to take the dues which are deposited by the respondent which is based, according to the respondent on the genuine claim where respondent has given him the bonuses, encashment of leave, the difference and gratuity etc. from the date of employment till termination. The applicant has also admitted to have received the dues in the evidence. However irrespective of what the stand is taken by the applicant, this appeal has no force on the point of law and is dismissed. If the order is passed in an appeal observing that he can take the dues as deposited, being offered by the respondent, the Appellate Court has also jurisdiction to pass any order which is equitable in any way to meet the ends of justice, P L D 1964 Kar. 569 DB, A I R 1921 Mad. page 620. But the Appellant has still open forum to pursue his legal remedy as the law suggests for the satisfaction of his point of view in respect of adjudication if he so desires.

2. Appeal is dismissed on point -of law of jurisdiction concerning the Payment of Wages Act.

A.A./977/Lb.S.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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