Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL SIDDIQI VS Respondent: MULTAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, MULTAN
1978 P L C 274
1978 P L C 274
[IVth Labour Court Punjab]
MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL SIDDIQI
Versus
MULTAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, MULTAN
Appeal No. 16 of 1974, decided on 11th October 1975.
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)----
‑-----S. 15 read with Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑Jurisdiction of Authority restricted to regulating payment of wages without any authority to determine them‑Such matters in respect of establishment declared as essential service 'now to be determined by National Industrial Relations Commission.
Appellant in person
Abdul Rashid, Asstt. Labour Officer for Respondent.
DECISION
An appeal has been filed by Muhammad Maqbool Siddiqi, Head Cashier, M. E. S. Co., Multan against the judgment dated, 7th October 1975, given by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Multan, whereby his application for the award of back wages from let May 1967 to 21st February, 1972 was dismissed. The aforsaid period of service as matter of fact relates to non‑employment of the appellant on account of his having been dismissed by the respondent Management (MES Co. Limited, Multan). The appellant duly moved the then Punjab Industrial Court as well as the labour moved the appellate Tribunal for the redress of grievence and failed at the trial stage as well a in appeal. Subsequently it was due to the intervention of the labour Advisor to the Govern ment of Punjab that the appellant was re‑employed by the respondent Management as a matter of grace with the clear understanding that, though, he would be given the benefit of the continuity of service and the increments of pay accruing to him for the period of non‑employment he would not be given any arrears of the back wages. It happened that some of the co‑workers of the appellant who were terminated in similar circumstances and re‑employed by the respondent establishment were awarded some of the bank benefits as special cases. The appellant involving the aforesaid peculiar situation claimed the back wages of his service which being refused by the respondent, he moved the learned Authority for the payment of wages.
As a matter of fact the appellant failed to show any justification for realizing the wages claimed by him, which were never due to him in the eye of law when he was re‑employed in February, 1972, as a matter of grave. No fresh undertaking of any kind was held out to the appellant on behalf of the respondent Management to justify the claim of the appellant. The learned Authority below did not have any power to determine the wages of the appellant. His jurisdiction is' obviously restricted to regulating the payment of wages without any authority to determine than. Under the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 the Jurisdiction for the determination of the conditions of service of the employ governed by the said Act were to be determined by the Labour Commissioner which powers have recently been conferred on the National Industrial Commission and on that score the rights and conditions of service of the appellant are not amenable to be regulated by labour Court or by any other authority. The conclusion, which cannot be resisted is that the appeal has not force and is dismissed.