1987 PLP 690 (PLC)

Pay Rs.828.75 SDA (Spl. D.A.) Rs. 6.75 LCA Rs. 76.13 H. R. A. Rs. 303.63 Total: Rs. 1215.26" Admittedly, the respondent's claim was time‑barred, but alongwith the claim, the Respondent had also filed an application for condonation of delay as according to him, the delay was not wilful or deliberate as the respondent had been Continuously pursuing the matter with the petitioner, but on account of the adamant attitude of the petitioner, without any success. This application was resisted by the petitioner, according to whom the application had been filed by the respondent after a delay of about seven years, and since such delay could not be condoned under the law. However, the learned Authority was satisfied that grounds for condonation of the delay existed and consequently, it condoned the delay and directed that the case would proceed on merits. Under such circumstances, this petition has been filed.

3. I have heard Mr. Abbas Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Riaz Hussain Baluch, learned counsel for the Respondent.

4. The contention of Mr. Abbas Ahmad has been, that according to the provision to subsection (2) of section 12 of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 under which the application had been filed by the respondent No. 2, the authority was not competent in any case, to condone delay beyond six months and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Authority completely lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Riaz Hussain Baluch, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the labour laws having been enacted for the benefit of workers, required to be liberally construed and, therefore, the authority was competent to condone, the delay on being satisfied that grounds for the same existed.

5. In order to appreciate the respective contentions raised by the counsel, the relevant provisions of section 12 of the aforesaid Ordinance are reproduced as follows:‑ "

12. Claims arising out of delay in payment of wages and penalty or malicious or vexatious claims.‑‑(1) Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint any person to be the Authority to hear and decide for any specified area al claims arising out of delay in the payment or non‑payment of the wages of employees in that area. (2) When contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance, wages of any employee have been delayed or withheld, such employee himself or through any other person, whom he may authorise in this behalf, may within four months from the day on which such payment was to be made, apply to the Authority appointed under subsection (1): Provided that an application may be admitted after the said period of four months but not later than six months, if the applicant satisfies the authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. A perusal of subsection (2) of section '12 of the Ordinances indicate that the claim for payment of wages arising out of delay in the payment or. non‑payment of wages of an employee can be preferred within a period of four months from the day on which the payment was to be made to the employee. But, according to the proviso to subsection (2), if a claim is preferred beyond a period of four months, the same may be entertained by the Authority if the authority is satisfied that the employee had sufficient cause for not making the application within the period prescribed. However, the same proviso is subject to further exception as it places an embargo on the power of the authority to admit any application if filed beyond a period of six months. It consequently follows that if wages are claimed by the employee after a period of six months from the day on which the same became due, the Authority would not be competent to condone the delay even if it is satisfied that the employee had sufficient cause for not making such application within the prescribed period. In the present case, there is no contest on the point that the application of the respondent No.2 had been filed beyond a period of six months as admittedly, the same had been filed after about six years from the accrual of the cause of action to the respondent. Since such application in no case could be admitted beyond a period of six months by the authority, according to the proviso to subsection (2), the order passed by the authority condoning the delay is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction. Although the Authority has placed reliance on an authority of the Supreme Court reported in 1982 P L C 625, saying that the provision of the Labour Laws must be liberally construed in favour of the workers, but this case is not attracted to the facts of the present case as delay beyond six months in no case can be condoned under the relevant provisions of the law.

6. The upshot of the discussion is, that the petition is allowed and the order passed by the Authority, dated 6‑5‑1986, is held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will however, be no order as to costs. A. A. /P‑15/ K. Petition accepted.