1989 PLP 919 (PLC(CS))

Respondent in person in Revision No. 337 of 1988. Ch. Riaz Ahmad, Attorney for Respondents in Revisions Nos. 342, 344, 347, 348, 352, 354, 356, 358, 359 and 360 of 1988. Nemo for Respondents in the Remaining Revisions. Date of hearing: 11th July, 1988. The twenty‑four revisions captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 21‑12‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala in its appellate jurisdiction, whereby the twenty‑four appeals preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act were dismissed on the short ground that instead of depositing the amount, decreed by the Authority in the Court of the Authority, cheques were deposited. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the revisions, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. Hakim Ali, Rang Ali, Muhammad Sarwar, Shamas Din, Amjad Parvez, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Idrees, Muhammad Akram, Nasir Khan, Mahmood Ahmad, Khalid Javed, Lal Hussain, Mahmood Ahmad son of Muhammad Bakhsh, respondents in Revisions Nos. 338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 345, 346, 349, 350, 351, 353, 355, 357 respectively, have not appeared in spite of issuance of notices by registered post. The notices sent to them have not come back unserved, therefore, the presumption is that the notices have been received by them. The said respondents arc, therefore, proceeded ex parte.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since cheques are deposited after depositing the money, the depositing of cheques amounts to depositing of the amount covered by the cheques and thus by doing so, the provisions of section 17(1)(6) of the Payment of Wages Act have been complied with. The argument has no force. The very appeal does not lie if the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a certificate of the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with it the amount payable under the direction appealed against. The word `amount' is used m the proviso to section 17(l)(b) and not `cheque'. By no stretch of imagination a cheque can be taken as an amount covered by it. A cheque may not be honoured and thus it cannot be said that by depositing the cheque, the amount has been deposited with the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Of course where the amount is offered before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and under the A orders of the said Authority it is deposited with the Bank or in the Court or in the Post Office as directed by the Court, it may be said that the provisions of the proviso to section 17(1)(6) of the Payment of Wages Act have been complied with. 1n certain appeals even the cheques were not deposited. They are appeals Nos. 29/87 to 33/87. The appeals were lodged on 2‑9‑1987 but in the said appeals the amounts directed to be deposited were deposited on 23‑9‑1987 in the Muslim Commercial Bank in the account of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. In these circumstances the learned lower appellate Court rightly rejected the appeals which were, due to the detects pointed out above, incompetent and did not lie.

4. As a result, the revisions fail and are dismissed. A.E./590/Lb. P Revisions dismissed.