1989 PLP 350 (PLC)

This is a revision reporting that the order dated 26‑7‑1987 recorded the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. A petition for recovery of wages was brought by the petitioner union, which was accepted by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. No question of jurisdiction was raised therefore, no issue appears on the point. The learned lower Appellate Court holding that the learned Authority had no jurisdiction accepted the appeal and dismissed the petition brought under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. It has also been remarked by the learned lower Appellate Court that the appeal must have been dismissed as being time- barred if the order of the Authority had not been found void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned lower Appellate Court should have dismissed the appeal as time‑barred even if it had wrongly found that the order of the Authority was void ab initio. Since no objection m the written statement was raised challenging the jurisdiction of the Court, the learned lower Appellate Court could not have dismissed the petition on this ground. The questions whether the persons for the recovery of whose wages the petition had been brought, had or had not been reinstated in service or that they were or were not employed in a factory, were the questions of part and unless the point had been raised and evidence produced by the parties, no decision could be recorded thereon. Since the point was not raised, none of the parties led evidence. The impugned decision, therefore, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The appeal could be time‑barred by one day even if the period spent for obtaining the copy had not been excluded because the appeal was to be presented on 30‑5‑1987 which was Eid-holiday, therefore, the appeal was rightly presented on 31‑5‑1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the respondent has not brought any revision challenging the observation of the learned lower Appellate Court that the appeal was time‑barred nor brought any cross‑objections, this Court cannot make any observation on the point. This is a remand case and if the mistake which is apparent on the face of the record is not taken notice of, the final disposal of the petition brought under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act will be delayed because first of all the A appeal will be remanded to the learned lower Appellate Court for re-deciding the question of limitation. 1, therefore, take notice of the point in the interest of justice and hold that the appeal was not time‑barred. If the learned lower Appellate Court wanted to entertain the point of jurisdiction, it should have remanded the case to the Authority instead of dismissing petition on the said point since as mentioned above, the question of jurisdiction had not been raised by the respondent before the learned Authority.

3. As a result, the revision is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Appellate Court, the case is remanded to the learned Authority with the direction that it be re‑decided after inviting evidence of the I; parties on the point of jurisdiction and after deciding the said question. M.Y.H./425/Lb.P Petition accepted.