1981 PLP 559 (PLC)

The petitioner was employed as Peon in the Pakistan Railways. He was arrested in a case registered under sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code and as a consequence thereof he was placed under suspension on 9th January 1973. He was acquitted at the trial. He was re-instated on t2th September 1973. There was some dispute between him and the Pakistan Railways with regard to the salary payable to him for the period of suspension. He made an application under section 1 5 (2) of Payment of Wages Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Com pensation who had also been constituted as the competent authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Commissioner allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the Pakistan Railways to pay to him a sum of Rs. 984 as arrears of salary alongwith a sum of Rs. 3,936 as compensations. The Pakistan Railways preferred an appeal before the Labour Court which was heard by Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore. Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order of Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

2. In support of this writ petition a number of points have been taken but I propose to take notice of only one of them. Admittedly, the Pakistan Railways preferred the appeal under section 17 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act. This subsection prescribes a period of 30 days for the purpose of filing an appeal. In this case the Commissioner announced his decision on 30th May, 1977. The Pakistan Railways instituted the appeal on 18-7-1977, that is, after a time lag of 49 days. The Pakistan Railways applied for a copy of the Commissioner's order on 19th June, 1977 and obtained the same on 23th June, 1977. If it is allowed credit for the time spent by it in obtaining the said copy the appeal would appear to be barred by 14 days. Even if it be assumed that section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable the Pakistan Railways ought to have explained the reason for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. The appellate record does not show that the Pakistan Railways made any application for the condonation of delay. Similarly, the order of Rai Abdur Razzaque Khan does not appear that he had adverted to this aspect of the case at all. It is not disputed before me that he could not entertain an appeal beyond the period of limitation. His order therefore must be declared to be of no legal effect.

3. It is contended on behalf of the Pakistan Railways and conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under the Payment of Wages Act. I am not required at this stage to record my view on this proposition. However that may be, I direct that the appeal of the Pakistan Railways should be treated as still pending and it should be disposed of after first deciding the question of limitation. It will be open to the Pakistan Railways to apply for the condonation of delay. In case any such application is made, the appellate Court will consider it on merit alongwith the ques tion relating to its maintainability.

4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition accepted.