1999 PLP 468 (PLC)

These are six revision applications, filed under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Executive Engineer, Irrigation (hereinafter referred to as the Government) against Ghulam Hyder and other respondents (hereinafter referred to as the workers).

2. Since the points of law and facts, urged before me. are the same, I intend to dispose of all the above revision applications by this common judgment.

3. The facts, giving rise to the above revision applications, briefly stated are that the respondents filed their applications under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, on 21‑6‑1992. That was a joint application filed by 192 workers. The Reader after looking into the R&P, informs that all these applications are singed by all the workers, but they were represented by one Yar Muhammad the co-applicant. Written statement was filed by the Government on 11‑10‑1992. Preliminary legal and technical objections were taken by the Government which engaged the learned Authority for quite some time. However, on going through the order, passed by the learned Authority from beginning to the end, it appears that he has dealt with almost all the legal and technical points, one way or the other, except the point of limitation, raised by the Government. If it is true that the workers failed to produce documentary evidence of their actually working on weekly and public holidays, it was open to the learned Authority to summon the log book and other relevant record through Executive Engineer as a Court‑witness, because the Government is supposed to be in possession of the entire record and not the workers. However, the applications, filed by the workers, met with failure by order dated 20‑8‑1996.

4. Being aggrieved of the said order, the workers, filed an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in the Labour Court No.VII, at Sukkur. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties and their counsel, set aside the order of the learned Authority and remanded the case to it by its judgment 16‑4‑1998. The operative paragraph of the said judgment, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:‑‑ "

9. For the above reasons the impugned order(s) dated 11‑7‑1996 and 20‑8‑1996 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court for deciding afresh on merits after considering all legal aspects and framing issue of limitation and affording due chance of hearing to both parties. Consequently the appeal filed by the appellants stands disposed of with above observations. The record and proceedings of lower Court be returned back for compliance accordingly."

5. The Government chose to file the above revision applications against the aforesaid judgment which is aimed at setting aside the earlier order passed by the Authority, and remanding the case to it for deciding the applications afresh on merits, after considering all legal aspects and framing issue of limitation and affording due chance of hearing to the parties.

6. I find nothing wrong with the above order. There seems to be no illegality, incorrectness or even impropriety in the above order. The revision applications are, therefore, dismissed.

7. Before parting with the above judgment. I would like to add that my learned brother (now deceased), Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, while sitting as High Court Judge, has passed a very explicit judgment dated 1‑4‑1987 in Constitutional Petitions Nos. 88, 89, 109, 110, 114, 271 and 311 of 1986, filed by some other workers against the same Department, involving, more or less, the same legal issues. The learned Authority may please go through the said judgment which is on record minutely while deciding the legal issues. Announced in open Court, this the 3rd day of March, 1999. H.B.T./263/K/Lab. (Trib) Revision dismissed.