2004 PLP 207 (PLC)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 9‑10‑2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No.1225 of 2003.

2. The respondent No.3 was employed as Office Assistant in the petitioner‑Company on I‑1‑1989. His services were terminated on 14‑8‑1998. He moved an application before the Commissioner, Workman's Compensation (the respondent No.2), under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred td as the Act) for payment of Rs.40,500 as gratuity for the period from 1‑1‑1989 to 14‑8‑1998. The officers of the petitioner‑Company were proceeded against ex parte on 29‑8‑2002. Their application to set aside ex parte proceedings was also dismissed by the respondent No.2 on 7‑11‑2002 for want of prosecution. By order dated 28‑11‑2002, the respondent No.2 allowed the application of the respondent No.3 for payment of the amount of gratuity. A second application against ex parte proceedings was also dismissed by the respondent No.2, by order 3‑2‑2003, with a direction for payment of gratuity of Rs.40,500 alongwith costs of Rs.8,000 in favour of the respondent No.3. Therefore, moved Writ Petition No. 1225 of 2003 which Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, by the impugned judgment dated 9‑10‑2003. Hence this petition for leave to appeal

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the Act were made applicable to a commercial establishment with effect from 1‑7‑2001 by, virtue of the 'Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance LIII of 2001. Therefore, the claim of the respondent No.3 for payment of gratuity by the petitioner for the period from 1‑1‑1989 to 14‑8‑1998 was not entertainable. Reference was made to the case of Ex‑Lt. Col. Anwar Aziz (PA‑7122) v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 2001 SC 549 wherein it was held that the High Court was competent to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction if an order was found to be without jurisdiction or coram non judice.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. By reading original subsection (4) of section 1 of the Act, we find that, in the first instance, the provisions of the Act were made applicable for the payment of wages to persons employed by a factory or a railway administration. However, the said provisions was amended by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance No.1III of 2001, with effect from 1‑7‑2001, whereby the operation of the Act was extended to persons' employed in any industrial or commercial establishment. It does not mean that the benefit of the said provision would be restricted only to such employees who were appointed or employed on or after the said date and that the earlier employees were not governed by the Act. The Act is social, beneficial and remedial in nature. The object of the Act is to regulate the payment of wages to certain class of persons employed in a factory, industrial or commercial establishment or railways. The purpose of the amending Ordinance seems to be to provide a remedy to the persons employed in industrial or commercial establishments. Therefore, it can safely be said that the petitioner‑Company had become amenable to the provisions of the Act when the respondent No.3 had made an application. It is well‑settled that jurisdiction of a Tribunal is determinable at the commencement of proceedings unless contrary intention is expressed or implied in the relevant statute. Reference may usefully be made to the case of Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Karachi and another v. Mannu Khan and 3 others 1973 SCMR

62. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. S.A.K./N‑6/S Leave refused.