ORDER  SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

 

C.P. No.D-4316 of 2016

________________________________________________________

Date                      Order with signature(s) of Judge(s)

________________________________________________________

 

       Present:

 

       Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.

       Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J.

 

Muhammad Aslam Mughal     …………..                               Petitioner

 

  Versus

 

M/s. National Tiles & Ceramic

Limited & others                      …………..                          Respondents

 

1. For order on CMA No.30229/2016

2. For order on Office Objection No.1, 2 & 4.

3. For order on Misc. No.21309/2016

4. For hearing of Main Case.

 

17th November, 2016.

 

Mr. Zaeem Akhtar Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Jaleel Zubedi A.A.G.

-------------------------

           

 

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. – This writ petition has been moved against respondent No.1, who is private limited company for the payment of delayed/withheld wages of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that he has filed application under Section 15 of the of the Payment of Wages Act, 1934 i.e. Case No.09 of 2010, which is pending without any progress, therefore, he has moved this petition directly to this court. The claim of delayed/withheld wages may be filed under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1934 and in case for some reason, case is not decided, it is not alternate remedy to file the petition directly in this court with the prayer that private limited company i.e. respondent No.1 may be directed to pay delayed/withheld wages. The respondent No.1 is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court, however, the petitioner has already filed his case which has not been decided since 2010, therefore, this petition may be disposed of with some directions. The case of delayed/withheld wages is a case of hardship so the authority under the Payment of Wages Act should make some positive efforts to decide pending case, which may alleviate suffering of the petitioner. Whether he is entitled to claim or not it is to be decided by the authority after recording evidence and considering the material available on record but the decision on such type of applications should not be delayed for six (06) years.

 

2.       Learned A.A.G waives notice of this petition. Copy has been supplied to him. He has also proposed to give some directions to the Authority concerned.

 

3.       As a result of above discussion, this petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent No.3 to decide pending case of the petitioner within one (01) month after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the parties. Copy of this order may be transmitted to respondent No.3 and compliance report shall be submitted to this court through MIT-II.

 

                                                                                        JUDGE

                             JUDGE

 

Faizan/