MESSRS SIMMA FABRICS LTD., GUJRANWALA vs AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AND 3 OTHERS
This constitutional petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to entertain a claim filed by a legal adviser against his former employer. The petitioner, a company, had appointed the respondent as a legal adviser on a retainership basis, tasked with handling labour cases and providing legal counsel. Following the termination of this arrangement, the respondent sought recovery of unpaid fees and salary before the Authority. The core legal question was whether a legal adviser engaged on a retainership basis qualifies as a 'worker' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby bringing the dispute within the Authority's jurisdiction. The Court examined the nature of the relationship and the definition of 'worker' under the relevant statute. The Court held that the respondent, being a legal adviser retained for professional services rather than an employee performing manual or clerical labour, did not fall within the statutory definition of a worker. Consequently, the Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The petition was allowed, establishing that professional retainers do not constitute workers under the Act.
- Does a legal adviser engaged on a retainership basis qualify as a 'worker' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for professional fees by a legal adviser?
- Is a person hired for professional legal services considered an employee for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Section 1, Payment of Wages Act 1936
' The petitioner appointed respondent No, 4 as his legal adviser from 1st September 1979 on a retainership basis at Rs, 800 p. m. With regard to his duties as Legal Adviser, it was provided that he "will handle all Labour cases of all types in all Courts (even from a charge-sheet to a worker till his dismissal) and all other relative matters concerning with discipline and smooth functioning of the Factory or other matters in which legal advice is needed". The appointment was temporary for a year and liable to be cancelled on one month's notice on either side.
2. A registered notice was sent by the petitioner to the respondent No, 4 on 12th June, 1980 informing him that his retainer ship was cancelled from 1st June, 1980. Respondent No, 4 filed an application for the recovery of his dues before the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 on 7th July, 1980, claiming salary from February to July, 1980 = Rs, 4,800, fees for a civil suit Rs, 1,100, fees for ten cases before the Appellate Tribunal, Lahore = Rs, 5,500 deducting Rs, 2,600 already received, the balance being Rs, 2,900 and fee for a criminal cases Rs, 1,100, all told Rs, 9,900. He asked for ten times the compensation amounting to Rs, 99,900.
3. The respondent filed a reply denying all the allegations. The following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the petitioner does not come within the definition of worker and the Act.
0. P. R.
(2) Whether the petitioner has not come to this Court in good faith, if so, its effect.
0. P. R.
(3) Whether the relationship of a worker and employer does not exist between the parties and as such Court has not jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
0. P. R.
(4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the claimed amount, 0. P. P.
(5) Relief.
' Its liability to the respondent No, 4 to the extent of Rs, 9,419. This petition is thus allowed, with no order as to costs.
Cited by 5 cases
- Salim Javed Baig, etc. vs Federal Ombudsman, etc. 2016 LHC 1362
- SALIM JAVED BAIG and others vs FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN and others 2016 PLD Lahore 433, 2016 LHC 1362, 2016 C.L.R. 1017
- Salim Javed Baig, etc vs Federal Ombudsman, etc 2016 C.L.R. 1017
- AHMAD DIN vs SHAMA BIBI and 3 others 2003 CLC 1339
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another vs COMMISSIONER, WORKMEN'S 2000 PLC 268