| Case ID |
ffc4c6c9-5ab7-445e-8576-f31e7de65b62 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
HYD-01 of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 28, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 30, 2015 |
| Decision |
The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revision application filed by Messrs THATTA CEMENT COMPANY LTD. The company had failed to file an appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, challenging the order of the Authority which directed them to pay legal dues to their workers. The Labour Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred and refused to condone the delay. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the reasons provided by the company for the delay were insufficient and that the appellate authority did not have the power to condone such delays under the specific provisions of the act. On the merits, the company did not dispute the quantum of dues, and the workers had provided sufficient proof of their claims. Consequently, the revision was dismissed. |
| Summary |
This case involves Messrs THATTA CEMENT COMPANY LTD. and its failure to pay legal dues to workers who opted for separation under the Golden Handshake Scheme. The workers filed applications under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which were allowed, directing the company to pay the dues within 30 days. The company filed an appeal after 147 days, which was dismissed by the Labour Court as time-barred. The company argued that the delay was due to the court being vacant, but the Tribunal found this plea misconceived. The Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the dismissal, noting that neither the employer had shown sufficient cause for the delay nor did the appellate authority have the power to condone it. On the merits, the company did not dispute the dues, and the workers provided sufficient proof of their claims. The decision highlights the strict adherence to procedural timelines in wage disputes and the limited scope for condoning delays under specific statutory provisions. This case is significant for understanding the enforcement of workers' rights under the Payment of Wages Act, the responsibilities of employers, and the implications of procedural delays in legal proceedings. Keywords include Payment of Wages Act, Labour Court, time-barred appeal, worker rights, and legal dues. |
| Court |
Labour Appellate Tribunal
|
| Entities Involved |
Privatization Commission,
High Court of Sindh,
Federal Service Tribunal,
Messrs THATTA CEMENT COMPANY LTD.,
GHULAM MUHAMMAD
|
| Judges |
ALI SAIN DINO METLO
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan,
Miss Nasim Abbasi
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs THATTA CEMENT COMPANY LTD. through Authorized Officer
|
| Respondents |
GHULAM MUHAMMAD,
33 others
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 652,
2016 PLC 103
|
| Other Citations |
Abdul Ghaffar v. Mst. Mumtaz PLD 1982 SC 88,
Ali Muhammad v. Fazal Hussain 1983 SCMR 1239,
Allah Dino v. Muhammad Shah 2001 SCMR 286,
Rao Solat Yaseen Khan v. Director General and others 1995 PLC (CS) 1026,
Kh. Zaheer Ahmed v. District Account Rawalpindi 1984 PLC (CS) 386,
Zardad Khan v. Chairman WAPDA Lahore 1987 PLC (CS) 181,
Rao Muhammad Yaseen Khan v. Secretary Ministry of Education 1986 PLC (CS) 66,
Managing Director Sui Southern Company Limited v. Ghulam Abbas and 2 others PLD 2003 SC 724 = 2003 PLC (C.S.) 796
|
| Laws Involved |
Payment of Wages Act, 1936,
Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013
|
| Sections |
15,
17,
48(5)
|