1995 PLP 372 (PLC)

Zaffar Ali Shah for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th July, 1987. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 16‑12‑1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore in its appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of the Wages Act is illegal and irregular.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner after the termination of his service applied to the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of Wages for the period from 20‑5‑1980 to 31‑1‑1983. The petition was dismissed by the learned Authority on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the wages for the disputed period. The petitioner went in appeal to the learned lower Court which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner not being in service could not apply under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. The said point had been decided by the learned Authority in favour of the petitioner. The said order was challenged in revision which was accepted on the ground that without the presence of any cross objection, the learned lower Appellate Court could not decide the question of jurisdiction. After the appeal was remanded, cross‑objections were filed on behalf of the respondent and entertaining the same the learned lower appellate Court has held that the learned Authority had no jurisdiction. In the previous order the learned lower Appellate Court had said that the petitioner had a good case on merits but now in the impugned order the learned lower Court has not said anything about the merits of the case. Since the whole judgment of learned lower appellate Court was set aside while deciding the previous revision petition all the points were to be decided afresh.

3. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court is not correct. Section 1(4) of the Payment of Wages Act reads as under:‑‑ "It applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any factory and to persons employed (otherwise than in a factory) upon any railway by a railway administration or, either directly or through a sub‑contractor by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration." It is thus clear that the condition is that the person who can go to the learned Authority should have been employed either in a factory or in the railway. It is not provided in clause (4) that the persons applying under section 15(2) should actually be in service of any factory or railway on the date on which he makes the application. The only condition is that he should have been once employed either in the factory or in the railway and the wages should have been due for the period he was in service. Now even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has while interpreting the definition of workman come to the conclusion that it is not necessary that only those persons can go to the Labour Courts who are actually in service on the date on which they bring the grievance petitions. The learned Authority thus had jurisdiction and it had rightly held so. The finding of the learned Labour Court on the point, therefore, is set aside. Since the learned lower appellate Court has not after the appeal was remanded given its decision on the merits, the appeal is again liable to be remanded.

4. As a result of what has been said above the revision is accepted and holding that the learned Authority has jurisdiction, the appeal is remanded for decision of the remaining points in controversy between the parties. A.E./384/Lb.P Revision accepted.