IN THE COURT OFBEFORE THE LEARNED AUTHORITY APPOINTED

UNDER THE UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1969, (IV OF

1936) FOR MULTAN

Application No. _______ of 2020

Iftikhar Hussain S/o Mujtaba Hussan, R/o House No. 20, Street No.07, Block Y,
New Multan, Multan

…….…APPLICANT (“the Claimant”)

Versus

General Manager, China Railway First Group (CRFG), House No. 25, Street No.
01, G-6/3. Islamabad
…….…OPPOSITE PARTYOPPOSITE PARTY (“the Applicant”)

APPLICATION UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1969 (“the Claim”)

REPLY TO THE APPLICATION OF CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE

OPPOSITE PARTYAPPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM

Respectfully Sheweth:

Preliminary Objections:

1. That the Claim is not maintainable, is misconceived, tainted with malafide

and liable to outright dismissal.

2. That the Claim is not maintainable against the Applicant since it is not the

Claimant’s ‘employer’. The Claimant admittedly was employed by a Joint

Venture (JV) named CRFG-HRL-MATRACON, which is a separate and

distinct entity. Reference is made to Paragraph No.1 of the Application. The

Applicant neither in fact nor in law, was or is the ‘employer’ of the Claimant.

3. That there is no relationship of employment between the Parties. The

Applicant has been wrongly impleaded as the ‘opposite party’ in the case.

4. That the Claim is liable to be dismissed on the singular ground of non-

disclosure and mis-representation of material facts before the learned

 Authority. The Claimant has sought to invoke the Jurisdiction of the learned

Authority on the basis of fraud and mis-representation viz his employer, the

nature of his employment and the person/party liable for payment of his

Wages/Salary.

5. That malafide of the Claimant is apparent from the fact that he has not

appended a copy of the ‘Contract of Employment’ from which material facts

related to his employment, nature thereof and terms and conditions of

employment can be readily and easily ascertained. The amounts sought to be

recovered are prima facie inflated and not supported by any document. The

Claimant has with malafide intent only appended a letter signed by the

Project Manager of the Joint Venture CRFG-HRL-MATRACON, by and on

behalf of the JV, to suggest that he was an employee of the Applicant. The

Applicant categorically denies the Claimant as being its employee, or the

Applicant one responsible for payment of any amount to the Claimant.

6. That without prejudice to any of the above objections, the learned Authority

has no jurisdiction to entertain the Claim since the Claimant admittedly does

not fall within the definition of a ‘workman’.

7. That without prejudice to any of the above objections, the Claim before the

learned Authority even otherwise is not maintainable for the singular reason

of the admitted nature of employment/job of the Claimant i.e. Management.

Any claim by any class of employee other that “workmen” cannot be

entertained by the learned Authority and fall outside the scope of the

Payment of Wages Act, 1969 and the jurisdiction of the learned Authority.

That the above-titled Application of claim has been instituted by the

Applicant only with mala fide intentions to harass the Opposite Party into

paying the Applicant the compensated amount as prayed. The Applicant was
 appointed on 22.04.2016 and after 2 years resigned from his post as Manager

Contract on 31.12.2018 willingly and without undue influence and was given

an experience letter for further employment by the Project Manager, which

shows the mala fide intentions and behaviour of claiming money after

resigning from his post.

That the Applicant has wilfully and deliberately concealed from this Court his

alleged Employment Contract, on which the Applicant is claiming to be an employee

of the Opposite Party. Concealing the Alleged Employee Contract from this Court

shows the mala fide intention of harassing the Opposite Party into paying the

Applicant compensation amount of Rs. 35,159,680.00/- ten times.

8. That the Applicant during his tenure as a Manager Contract under the Joint

Venture Agreement (JVA) had not claimed or pressed to pay the alleged

compensated amount of Rs. 35,159,680.00/- and claiming the alleged

compensated amount of Rs. 35.159,680.00/- after resigning from his post of

Manager Contract shows the ill and mala fide intent of the Applicant

regardless of the fact that there is no proof whatsoever that the Applicant is

an employee/worker of the Opposite Party and has a right under law to bring

a claim against the Opposite Party, who could not be established to be the

Applicants employer. That further proceeding in the instant matter by the

learned Authority shall be corum non judice, without lawful authority and

shall represent abuse of process. The Claimant ought to avail appropriate

remedy available to it before the appropriate forum(s).

9. That since the answering Respondent is not the Claimant’s employer no

record of employment relating of the Claimant is available with it. In view of

foregoing, the answering Respondent hereby reserves the right to take

additional objections and address merits of the case if the Claim is proceeded

with and as and when further record pertaining to employment of the

Claimant comes to surface/is made available by any person or party

whosoever.
10.

On Merits:

That Paragraph No. 1 is a matter of record and need no reply. That to the

extent of being employed as a Manager Contract, the Applicant has not

appended his Alleged Employment Contract with the claim.

That Paragraph No. 2 is vehemently denied. That There is no proof/record that the

Applicant is an employee of China Railway First Group (CRFG), hence, the

Applicant could not claim any compensation from CRFG, as they are not the

employer of the Applicant. The Applicant has come to this Court with unclean

hands to claim illegal monetary gain. To bring a claim in the scope of the Law, the

Applicant would have to come under the definition of “Workman”, which according

to the definition, the Applicant, with the designation of “Contract Manager” does not

come under that definition, and this Court, hence, does not have the jurisdiction to

entertain the claim against CRFG.

That Paragraph No. 3 is a matter of record and does not need any reply and

be read as an integral part of the reply.

1. That Paragraph No. 4 is a matter of record and does not need any reply and

be read as an integral part of the reply.

2. That Paragraph No. 5 is a matter of record and does not need any reply and

be read as an integral part of the reply.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully humbly prayed that the instant Claim Application

be allowed and the titled Application instituted by the Applicant be dismissed; for

want of Jurisdiction.

Costs may also be granted;

Any other relief consistent with the facts stated in the instant Application be also be

granted.
 APPLICANT
OPPOSITE PARTY
Through:
Dated: ___-03-2020

HAMZA SIDDIQUE
Advocate High Court

KHIZAR JAVED
Advocate High Court

HAMZA SIDDIQUI
Advocate high Court