1993 PLC(CS) 756

SIRAJ MUHAMMAD Versus MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., MIRPURKHAS

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1993 PLC(CS) 756

CourtSindh Labour Appellate Tribunal

Case No.Revision Applications Nos. HYD‑373 and 374, of 1989

Date1993-05-18

Judge(s)Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal

ResultRevision applications dismissed

DECISION

These Revision Applications call in question the order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad setting aside the orders of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under tire Payment of Wages Act passed on an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The circumstances in which these arose in brief are as follows.

2. The case of the applicants was that they had been called upon to work on holidays in the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 and still they had not been paid compensation which they were entitled to receive. In the other application they claimed compensation for the delay in the payment. Their petition was contested on the ground that they had availed the delayed holidays with compensatory holidays as provided under section 49(1‑A) of the Factories Act and according to the settlement with the CBA they had received 70% cash in balance as compensatory holidays".

3. These Revision Applications have remained pending for 4, 5 years and today I have received an application for adjournment from Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari. It is extremely unfortunate that the matter had remained pending for so many years and on such slender Lasis. I therefore see no occasion to wait for Mr. Muhammad Moos4 Laghari and I have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq on behalf of the respondent.

4. In the proceedings conducted by the learned Commissioner and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the witnesses had conceded that they could not give the dates on which they had worked. They also admitted that they had not made any application for the payment, of these dues that had remained outstanding for a number of years. It was also admitted that they had been receiving cash and balance but could not say on what account it was paid. This is what had been testified by Siraj Muhammad, Nazakat Hussain and also Muhammad Arshad. In this state of evidence the order of the Labour Court is very proper.

5. In the other Revision Application the demand was for ten times compensation because of the delay in payments. In the light of the earlier observation, both the Revision Applications are devoid of any merit. I will therefore uphold the orders and dismiss the Revision Applications.

H.B.T./2209/Lb.S Revision applications dismissed.