Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI VS Respondent: NOOR KHAN
1988 P L C 500
1988 P L C 500
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI
Versus
NOOR KHAN and 8 others
Revision Petitions No.RI‑602 to 610 of 1987, decided on 25th November, 1987.
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.15(2) & 17‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim stay‑‑Jurisdiction of Authority to grant‑ Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 if competent to decide question raised in main petition before it, held, has jurisdiction to stop further deductions till decision of case‑‑Railway administration starting deductions of overtime wages on plea of being excess‑ Employees bringing application under S.15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and praying for interim stay order restraining Railway administration from making further deductions‑‑Authority passing stay order and same maintained in appeal by Labour Court‑‑Revision against such order rejected by Appellate Tribunal in limine.
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 25th November, 1987.
ORDER
The revisions captioned above report that the orders dated 18‑10‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi, are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the nine revisions mentioned above, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
3. The facts are that on the plea that overtime wages were paid in excess, the petitioner started deductions and the respondents brought applications under section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act. The respondents applied for interim stay to restrain the petitioner from making further deductions till the final decision of the main cases. The said petitions have been accepted by the learned lower court.
4. It has been argued‑ by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court had no jurisdiction to issue a stay order with regard to the wages which have not yet fallen due to the respondents. He says that according to the definition of 'wages' the wages earned included in the term and not the wages which the worker has to earn in future. There is no dispute about it. But it does not mean that the employer cannot be restrained from making further deductions till the decision of the case. The learned counsel has also argued that no stay order could be issued in future. This argument also is not tenable. A stay order is always for the future and not for the past. If otherwise, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is competent to decide the question raised before him in the main petition he had jurisdiction to stop further deductions till the decision of the case.
5. It has also been argued` that no loss is to be suffered by the respondents by the refusal of the stay order. Here also I cannot agree. This is true that if deductions are made in future the respondents can ask for its recovery but they will be put to great inconvenience because for every deduction they will have to move the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Apart from it the respondents being low paid employees require wages at present and if deduction is made illegally they will be put to great hardship and the inconvenience which will be faced by them will not be calculated in terms of money. So in these circumstances the stay order has been rightly issued.
6. As a result the revisions fail and are dismissed in limine.
A.E. /478/Lb.P. Revisions dismissed.