1993 PLP 655 (PLC)

Mazhar Hakim for Petitioner. Rana Abdul Hamid Talib for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd May 1993. This judgment shall dispose of fifty‑seven (57) Revision Petitions (Nos. GA‑81/93‑Punjab to GA‑137/93‑Punjab) filed by the Doaba Rice Mills Limited, Hafizabad Project and forty‑four (44) Revision Petitions (Nos. GA 138/93‑Punjab to GA‑166/93‑Punjab and GA‑168/93‑Punjab to GA‑182/93 Punjab) filed by the Doaba Rice Mills Limited, Eminabad Project as they involve identical questions of facts and law. The brief facts are that fifty‑seven employees of the Doaba Rice Mills Limited, Hafizabad Project and forty‑four employees of the Doaba Rice Mills Limited, Eminabad Project individually filed petitions under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Authority thereunder at Gujranwala each claiming Rs.1,200 for the period from 1‑12‑1990 to 31‑5‑1991 at the rate of Rs.200 per mensem as special allowance under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1990. 'The, petitioner opposed all those applications: The Authority vide its order dated 25‑4‑1992 accepted the claim of the respondents with three times compensation and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.4,800 in each case within thirty days.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred one hundred and one (101) appeals before the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala. The Labour Court vide; its single order dated 24‑10‑1992 dismissed all the appeals on the, ground that none of them bore a court‑fee stamp of Rs.5. The petitioner has assailed this order in these revision petitions.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On a perusal of the record of the Labour Court it reveals that the impugned order was passed without fixing a date within, or by which the court‑fee was to be supplied by the petitioner. It has been held in Siddiq Khan v. Abdul Shakoor Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289) that it is not lawful to reject a plaint or an appeal on the ground of deficient court‑fee without first granting time to the plaintiff/appellant to supply the deficiency. It has been explained that provision of such an opportunity is mandatory and obligatory. This principle has been reiterated in Mukhi Chatromal and another v. Khubchand and others, I (1993 SCMR 1113). It has been enunciated that in case of failure to provide an opportunity to make up deficiency in court‑fee, any penal action by way of dismissing a plaint or an appeal would not be justified. In view of these pronouncements, the impugned order is manifestly unsustainable.

5. In the circumstances, all the one hundred'‑and one revision petitions are accepted and the impugned order is set aside on payment of Rs.30 as costs by the petitioner to the respondents in each case. All the appeals are remanded to the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala for their decision on merits in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to supply the deficient court‑fee. H.B.T./750/Lb.P Petitions accepted.