1988 PLP 632 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S.38(3‑a)‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S.17‑‑Revision‑ Practice and procedure‑‑Wages for the period workman was under transfer‑‑Transfer order challenged before National Industrial Relations Commission on plea of unfair labour practice and matter pending before Commission after issuance of stay order‑‑Workman moving application under S.15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for wages for period involved and such application accepted by Authority‑‑Order of Authority appealed against before Labour Court‑‑Labour Court adjourning appeal sine die till decision on main petition by National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑Amount of wages if received by workman being difficult to be recovered back in case decision of Commission went against him‑‑Appellate Tribunal declining to interfere in revision. Malik Ghulam Rasool for Petitioner. Saleem Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1987. The revision captioned above reports that the order dated 13‑1‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the appeal pending before it has been adjourned sine die, is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was transferred and he challenged that transfer in Labour Court from where he had obtained an interim stay order. The stay order was challenged in revision before this Tribunal and it was set aside. The petitioner had challenged the transfer order before the National Industrial Relations Commissioner (NIRC) also on the ground of unfair labour practice and is alleged to have obtained a stay order from there. The main petition was accepted and transfer order was held illegal. Appeal of the respondent was dismissed and so was the fate of the writ petition and now the matter is before the Hon'ble Supreme Court from where the operation of the decision of this Tribunal and of the High Court has been suspended. On account of the issuance of the stay order by the NIRC the petitioner moved an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority for the wages for the period after the stay order was issued. The said petition was accepted and appeal before the learned lower appellate Court is pending. The learned lower appellate Court has adjourned the said appeal sine die and hence this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the stay order issued by the NIRC is intact and it has not been challenged uptil now, but the learned counsel for the respondent does not admit the issuance of. any such stay order. However, in the order of the learned Authority it is mentioned that the NIRC had issued stay order vide Exh.P.2 dated 1‑12‑1985. Since an exhibit mark has been assigned to the stay order by the learned Authority in its judgment, alleged to have been obtained from the NIRC, it appears prima facie that such a stay order may have been obtained from the Commission. Anyhow, the learned lower appellate Court, before whom the appeal is pending, has to record its final finding on the point. It is not clear at this stage whether fn a criminal or civil case the stay order has been obtained, so nothing can be said about its real effect. Usually in criminal cases where perpetual relief of setting aside the transfer order or an order of punishment is not sought a stay order cannot be issued. If the NIRC has special powers to issue stay orders in criminal cases, the matter may be different. However, this much is clear that a transfer order was challenged in the grievance petition before the Labour Court on different grounds, whereas before the NIRC the ground of attack was unfair labour practice. The Supreme Court has suspended the operation of the orders passed by this Tribunal and the High Court, whereby the transfer order was declared as illegal on different grounds and not on the ground of unfair labour practice. So, the mere fact that‑ the Supreme Court has in the appeal preferred against the order of the High Court suspended the operation of the orders passed by this Tribunal and the High Court is not sufficient to adjourn the appeal sine die. However, there is another point for which the impugned order need not be interfered with. After this Tribunal had declared the transfer order as illegal and before the respondent could go in writ and obtain a stay order, the petitioner managed to receive wages for the period he remained under transfer order and had not joined the place of his new posting. Now if the Supreme Court happens to accept the appeal of the respondent and sets aside the order of the High Court, the result would be that the petitioner shall have to refund the amount already recovered by him. It is difficult to recover the amount from a worker, because he being a needy person spends away the honey which he receives. This is not known as to what will be the result of the petition brought by the petitioner before the NIRC. If the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioner but the NIRC dismisses the petition of the petitioner pending there, again A the amount decreed by the learned Authority would be refundable and it would be a further difficulty for the respondent to recover the wages. In these circumstances, there appears to be no justification to interfere with the impugned order, whereby the learned lower appellate Court has adjourned the appeal sine die. A.E. /378/Lb.P Revision dismissed.