1982 PLP 711 (CLC)

Syed Ali Shah for Petitioner. Abdul Karim Saggu for Respondent No.

3. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Date of hearing : 16th November, 1981. This writ petition has been filed to challenge the validity of the order dated 28‑3‑1978, of the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby, respondent No. 3 was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner with the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of his dues. .

2. The brief facts relevant to the filing of the present petition are that respondent No. 3 was removed from service of the petitioner on 15‑10‑1969. The respondent challenged the validity of his removal from service by means of a civil suit which was decreed in his favour on 9‑11‑1974. In consequence, respondent No. 3 was re‑instated in December, 1976. The petitioner treated respondent No. 3 as on duty from 15‑10‑1909 to April, 1973 but no wages were paid to him for the aforesaid period. Respondent No. 3 filed an appli cation under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for the redress of his grievance before respondent No.

2. The respondent accepted the application vide his order dated 10‑9‑1977 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 56,573 alongwith one time compensation. The total amount comes to Rs. 1,13,146.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, filed an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act before respondent No.

1. The appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 28‑3‑1978. Respondent No. 3 was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner with the authority under the Payment of Wages Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order, mainly, on the ground that in view of the provisions made in section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, it being a case of delayed wages only Rs. 10 in addition to the amount due could be allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised three fold preliminary objections against the maintainability: of the writ petition. Firstly, that the writ petition has become infructuous, inasmuch as in pursuance of the impugned order dated .28‑3‑1978, the petitioner voluntarily paid the entire amount to respondent No. 3 in April, 1978. Secondly that the petition is barred by laches, inasmuch as the impugned order was passed on 28‑3‑1978 and notwithstanding the fact that the same was acted upon by the petitioner himself, the same was not challenged by writ petition before November, 1978. Thirdly, that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, inasmuch as the entire amount including the amount awarded as compensation had already been paid by the petitioner before the filing of the writ petition but the same was never disclosed in the writ petition and the petitioner succeeded in obtaining an interim order dated 29‑11‑1979 from, this Court to the effect that the amount awarded as compensation shall not be paid to the petitioner, although the amount in question had already been paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of laches and conduct of the petitioner is irrelevant in the facts and circumstances, of the case, inasmuch as, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. I find o force in the sub mission made by the petitioner's counsel writ against a void order may be dismissed if the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from challenging it or has not approached the Court with clean hands or if he has been guilty of laches. Reference may be made to S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. The Chairman Screening Committee, Lahore and another (1978 S C M R 367). I am inclined to agree with the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. M. A. K. Petition dismissed.