1984 PLP 220 (PLC)

P L D 1969 Lah. 1939 ref. P L D 1978 Kar. 649 held not applicable. Mian‑Nisar Ahmad Salim and Malik Bashir Ahmad for Appellant. Date of hearing : 11th January, 1983. The twenty‑eight appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 30th March, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted and they were directed to be paid one month's basic pay as customary bonus besides statutory bonus already paid. Previously an appeal was brought by the appellant against only one worker which was accepted on the grounds that origin of this kind of bonus was not ancient, continuous and paid irrespective of losses. The tests given in the Indian Supreme Court authority were absent. The appeals are admittedly time‑barred, inasmuch as the impugned decision of the learned lower Court is dated 30th March, 1981 but the appeals have been preferred on 20th December, 1982.

2. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of limitation is that no question of limitation arises since the impugned orders of the lower Court are void. 1n support of their argu ment the learned counsel have cited P L D 1969 Lah. 1939 and P L D 1978 Kar.

649. In the former ruling evacuee property 6ccupied by Jammu & Kashmir refugees was transferred to none‑refugees from the State. It was held that such a property could be transferred to Jammu & Kashmir refugees and was not available to be transferred to any other person. The order of transfer was treated without jurisdiction and it was held that no question of limitation could arise for considering the merits of the case. The second mentioned ruling is not exactly on the point. It has been observed that a decision of Labour Court even though without jurisdiction cannot be set aside in civil jurisdiction if it has not occasioned injustice to the parties. By this analogy the learned counsel have tried to argue that if this Court ignores the law of limitation in order to relieve the appellant from an illegal and unjust order of the lower Court, it would be only just and proper. I have given my anxions consideration to the point raised by the learned counsel but 1 have not found myself to agreement with them, The impugned order of the learned lower Court is not void or without jurisdiction. A claim as to bonus can be placed only before a Labour Court and no other Court. In reality the learned lower Court did not correctly understand the Indian Supreme Court authority and thus fell to error in granting customary bonus to the workers. A wrong and erroneous order is quite different from an order without jurisdiction. The question of entitlement to customary bonus involved in the case was difficult and intricate, therefore, the learned lower Court could not correct ly understand the authority of the Indian Supreme Court. If a ruling is not correctly understood and appreciated, it would not mean that the order is void or without jurisdiction. A void order is that which is not warranted by law or for which there is no legal support. A valid order is based upon and is supported by a statutory provision. If a High Court interprets a legal provision, it does not mean that the Court which has not correctly understood the interpretation passed an order which is void or without jurisdiction. The interpretation of legal points made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is by virtue of Article 189 of the Constitution of 1973 binding upon all Courts of Pakistan but the decision of Indian Supreme Court does not command such a binding force. It has only a persuasive value. Moreover, the learned lower Court did not refuse to follow the Indian Supreme Court authority but could not correctly under stand it. So the impugned orders cannot be characterised as either void or without jurisdiction and the rulings cited by the learned counsel are not germane to the case,

3. The appeals being hoplessly time‑barred are rejected. A . g. Appeals rejected.