1998 PLP 282 (PLC)

N. Naz, Representative of Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th December, 1996. Judgment delivered on 19-7-1992 by Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, having gone against the Town Committee, Khewra, the present revision petition was preferred on 12-8-1992 before this Tribunal by the Town Committee.

2. As retired mid-wife of the Town Committee, Mst. Saleh Bibi had, on 2-2-1991, approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jhelum/Chakwal, laying claim to salary, gratuity, etc., as also additional remuneration, for the period 1-6-1976 to 12-8-1989, in the amount of Rs.83,300, under section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act. A decree in the amount of Rs.85,000 was passed in her favour by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, on 19-5-1991. Actually, the evidence of the Town Committee, Khewra, respondent before the 'Authority', had been closed on 28-4-1991, and on the strength of the evidence led by Mst. Saleh Bibi, her claim had been decreed finally on 19-5-1991. The Town Committee sought review of the aforesaid order, but the 'Authority' dismissed the review application on 7-7-1991 Thereafter, on 29-7-1991, the Town Committee filed an appeal before the Labour Court at Rawalpindi. The appeal was dismissed by the Labour Court on 19-7-1992, as being barred by the law of limitation.

3. I find, on a perusal of the record, that Mst. Saleh Bibi's evidence had been recorded by the 'Authority' on 28-3-1991, the day when the issues had been transacted. The Town Committee had been asked to lead its evidence on 4-4-1991, when the evidence by the Town Committee could not be produced and the matter was adjourned to 28-4-1991, when again the Town Committee, as respondent before the 'Authority' had no evidence to adduce, and the same was closed. Thus, only two dates were given to the Town Committee for production of its evidence and, as such, it would not be Committee to lead its evidence, and by reason Bibi's claim was decreed, on the strength of the evidence she had led. She had, on 4-4-1991, made her own statement and she had not even been cross-examined. The 'Authority' had probably not allowed the Town Committee's representative to subject Saleh Bibi to cross-examination, as it has been written under Saleh Bibi's statement dated 4-4-1991 that she has not been cross-examined, although an opportunity in that regard has been given. It appeared that the 'Authority had proceeded against the Town Committee, and in favour of Saleh Bibi, in undue and indecent haste. This was certainly not fair. The reasons given in his order dated 19-5-1991 by the Authority/Workmen's Compensation Commissioner are also inadequate, as it has merely been said that Saleh Bibi's statement and evidence having remained unrebutted, she has succeeded in establishing her claim, which in fact was not scrutinised by the 'Authority', by application of its independent mind.

4. As the Town Committee had the feeling that its evidence had been closed unjustifiably, in rather unusual hurry, by the 'Authority', a review application was submitted on 30-5-1991, with a request that the final order rendered by the 'Authority' on 19-5-1991 be set aside on review. It was submitted that the representative of the Town Committee had reached the office of the 'Authority' late, as the wagon, in which he was travelling, had developed some disorder and further that services of an Advocate could also not be utilised and the Town Committee could not place before the 'Authority' its view-point in legal and proper form. The 'Authority' rejected the review petition on 7-7-1991, on obtaining reply to it from Mst. Saleh Bibi (on 13-6-1991), and by observing that the 'Authority' had no powers to review its own orders. Then, as already said, on 29-7-1991. the Town Committee filed an appeal in the Labour Court at Rawalpindi, assailing both the orders rendered by the `Authority' on 19-5-1991 and 7-7-1991.

5. The learned Labour Court has referred to the contention raised before it by the learned counsel for the petitioner (Town Committee, Khewra) that every 'Authority' and Court has an inherent power of review. In the opinion of the learned Court below, the appeal, review and revision are all creation of statute and such powers cannot be exercised, unless the same have specifically been conferred by the relevant enactment. I find that in the course of its judgment, the learned Labour Court has also said, in the beginning of para. No. 2, that the ' decretal amount' had been received on 29-7-1991. This important development remains to be ascertained. It has to be made sure if Saleh Bibi has got the amount or the same has been deposited with the 'Authority' by the Town Committee. On having found the appeal to be barred by the law of limitation, the same has been dismissed by the learned lower Court (on 19-7-1992). It has to be borne in mind that before coming up in appeal to the Labour Court, the Town Committee had, as already said, on 30-5-1991, filed a review petition before the same Authority, and thus, it had been prevented by a genuine cause and a legal development from coming to the competent Court (Labour Court) in appeal. The Town Committee thus had an entitlement to ask for condonation of delay that had been caused in pursuing the matter either in a wrong forum or by way of a wrong remedy. Final order by the 'Authority' was passed on 19-5-1991 and the review petition was dismissed on 7-7-1991, and the present appeal was preferred on 29-7-1991.1 do not think that the Town Committee had displayed much of slackness in the matter. On becoming aware of the order dated 7-7-1991, the Town Committee had hastened to file an appeal before the Labour Court at Rawalpindi on 29-7-1991, under section 17, Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In appeal, both the orders, having been passed by the 'Authority' on 19-5-1991 and 7-7-1991, have been assailed; and I am of the view that the appeal could not be checked out in the summary manner it was done, I have the feeling that the Authority as well as the Labour Court had remained. oblivious of the Town Committee's cause and had shown undue indulgence to Saleh Bibi, who must, however, get the relief, if indeed it is due; but the Town Committee, which too is not an affluent body, also ought to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned decision dated 19-7-1992 delivered by the learned Labour Court. The revision petition is allowed, although with no order as to costs.

6. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jhelum, for its decision afresh, in the light of the evidence, which the Town Committee, Khewra may choose to lead. Mst. Saleh Bibi made her sole statement and may also be enabled to corroborate her claim by leading more evidence, if she wishes or is advised to do so. The Assistant Director Labour, exercising powers of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Jhelum, shall summon the parties and ask them to adduce evidence before him afresh, on a date convenient to him. H.B.T./883/Lb.P Revision petition allowed.