TEHSIL MUNICIPAL, ADMINISTRATION FAISALABAD CITY vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment regarding the applicability of labor laws to the petitioner, Tehsil Municipal Administration, Faisalabad City. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's activities fall within the definition of a 'factory' under the Factories Act, 1934, specifically whether the petitioner is involved in making, altering, or preparing any article or substance for sale or transportation. The petitioner contends that the impugned judgment failed to adhere to the principles established by the Supreme Court in the case of Town Committee Ghakhar Mandi v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 57 others (PLD 2002 SC 452). The respondent argues that the factual controversy regarding the nature of the petitioner's operations requires the recording of evidence, which is currently underway. Upon preliminary review, the Supreme Court observed that the dictum laid down in the Town Committee case appeared to have been ignored by the lower forum. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised and directed that the status quo be maintained pending the final adjudication of the matter.
- Does the definition of a factory under Section 2(j) of the Factories Act 1934 apply to a Tehsil Municipal Administration?
- Is the determination of whether an entity constitutes a factory a matter requiring the recording of evidence?
- Section 2(j), Factories Act 1934
ORDER
It is inter alia, contended that the judgment impugned is in violation of the principles as laid down in case titled Town Committee Ghakhar Mandi v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 57 others (PLD 2002 SC 452). It is also contended that the petitioner is not involved in making, altering and preparing any Article or substance with a view to its sale and transportation arid thus the provisions as contained in clause (j) in section 2 of the Factories Act, 1934, are not applicable in the case of the petitioner.
2. Mr. N.A. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for respondent is present and controverted the view-point taken by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the controversy could not be resolved unless and until evidence is recorded, which is being recorded.
3. Be that as it may in view of the dictum as laid down in Town Committee's case (supra), prima facie, it appears that it has been ignored.
4. The contentions agitated hereinabove on behalf of the parties need consideration. We are therefore, inclined to grant leave; meanwhile the status quo is directed to be maintained.
Leave to . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.