1997 PLP 343 (PLC)

Amjad H. Malik v. Mst. Razia Begum 1989 SCMR 1414 ref. M.A. Javed for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 18th June, 1996. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had on 31‑10‑1994 awarded to the respondent emoluments, in terms of gratuity, bonus, arrears of pay, etc. in the amount of Rs.41,350; and the learned Labour Court at Faisalabad had upheld the decision, by a judgment announced on 27‑6‑1995. The Labour Court's order has been assailed by way of the present revision petition, and I have briefly heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has made his submissions in person.

2. It will not be disputed that an Appellate Court independently renders its own judgment in a case, although a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction may not be that exhaustive or comprehensive, while dealing with a matter. The learned counsel for the revision‑petitioner is not entirely incorrect in urging that the Court below has dismissed the appeal of the employer in a slipshod manner and has not really discussed the evidentiary material available on record, as also the legal propositions involved. Even before the 'Authority', the employer had raised a few preliminary objections, and the same were repeated in appeal by the establishment. Some of those seemed to be quite important, as for instance, according to the employer, the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable, and the claim, if at all it was tenable, was excessive. The establishment had on its rolls less than 20 workers. Salary for December, 1993 and January, 1994 had already been paid to the employee. It remained to be determined if the employee had been dismissed or his services had been terminated, and if at all he was entitled to gratuity. The petition had not been submitted through an authorised person, on payment of proper court‑fee. The alleged claim did not fall within the ambit of 'delayed' or 'deducted' wages. These were the objections raised by the establishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the respondent was drawing wages exceeding Rs.1,500 per month, and the learned ' Authority' had, therefore, no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. The respondent had himself left service and was, therefore, not entitled to "notice pay". "Special allowance", payable under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1988, was included in the monthly wages and could not be reckoned in the context of any other law and for award of benefit of any other kind to the employee.

3. It appears that due to rush of work, or shortage of time, the learned lower Court has dealt with the matter in somewhat perfunctory way. It has been held in 1989 SCMR 1414 (Amjad H. Malik v. Mst. Razia Begum), that an Appellate Court is required to consider the evidence produced by the parties and give its reasons for recording its findings. If even documentary evidence or oral testimony of the witnesses produced by the parties is not', discussed by the Appellate Court, it would be a procedural irregularity, justifying remand of the case.

4. I would set aside the impugned order dated 27‑6‑1995 of the Labour Court, and remand the case, with direction that the appeal shall be decided A afresh, in accordance with law, at an early date. No order as to costs. Next date in the Labour Court would be 4‑7‑1996. Records shall all be remitted without delay. H.B.T./833/Lb.P Order accordingly.