GLOBAL PHARMACEUTIAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RURAL, ICT, ISLAMABAD / AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, ISLAMABAD Ss — 2025 PLC 204 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Citation: 2025 PLC 204 ISLAMABAD
Court: Islamabad High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: PLC
Parties: GLOBAL PHARMACEUTIAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RURAL, ICT, ISLAMABAD / AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, ISLAMABAD Ss
Subject matter: Constitutional
Provisions referred to: S. 2; S. 15; Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012); Wages Act; Industrial Relations Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

GLOBAL PHARMACEUTIAL VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RURAL, ICT, ISLAMABAD / AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, ISLAMABAD Ss.1(4), 2(g) & 15---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.2(xxxiii)---Phrase "person employed"---Workman---Nature of duty---Recovery of wages---Authority, jurisdiction of---Petitioner / employer company terminated respondent who was its employees---Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 allowed complaint filed by respondent/employee regarding recovery of his salaries---Plea raised by petitioner / employer company was that respondent / employee was not workman therefore, the Authority had no jurisdiction in the matter---Validity---Phrase "person employed" under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 must be interpreted in light of definition of "workman" under Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Only those who engage in manual, technical or clerical labour as defined by law can seek protection or relief under Payment of Wages Act, 1936---As per job description and responsibilities of respondent / employee, he did not perform the kind of duties that would bring him within definition of "workmen" under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Respondent / employee did not qualify for legal protections or remedies available under Payment of Wages Act, 1936---Authority under S. 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 did not have jurisdiction to hear or decide complaint of respondent / employee---High Court set aside order passed by the Authority as the same was passed without jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC

2025 PLC(CS) 1593 SUPREME-COURTPROVINCE OF SINDH VS AMANULLAH 'Mutatis mutandis'---Connotation---Expression mutatis mutandis generally applies for making certain adjustmen…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION R. 11---Identical cases, entertaining of---Scope ---Petitioner, while relying on R. 11 o…
2025 PLC(CS) 606 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRGHAZANFAR ALI VS VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR Principle---adequate alternate remedy----Under common law, remedy of…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Conduct of the party invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court---Scope and effect ---Peti…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION administration of justice---Points ascertained at time of admission of case---Subsequent…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Doctrine of laches---Indolence of aggrieved party---Effect---Petitioner filed the writ p…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English