1998 PLP 68 (PLC)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th March, 1997. On the alleged refusal of respondent No. 4--employer to pay the retirement benefits, the petitioner filed his claim in the stun of Rs.22,981.60 before the Authority (respondent No. 3) constituted under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Ten times compensation was also claimed. Vide order dated 12-2-1984 (Annexure 'C') respondent No. 3 allowed the claim in the sum of Rs.19,013.94 and further granted Rs.5,000 as compensation on account of the number of dates of hearing and the mental torture caused to the petitioner for the delay in making the payment. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Labour Court which was dismissed on 15-7-1984 (Annexure ' E'). Thereafter respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition under section 38(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.

1. This revision was allowed and the impugned order of payment of money was set aside to the extent of payment of compensation of Rs.5,

000. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court for a declaration that the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is without lawful authority.

2. In spite of notice and appearance of the name in the cause list, none on behalf of respondent No. 4 was appeared to oppose this petition. The basic question as to whether the orders passed by the Labour Court under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, are revisable or not, has since been settled by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Hussain and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Chairman, Railway Board, Lahore and others (PLD 1991 SC 385). The Supreme Court has held that a revision is competent. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court learned counsel has rightly not urged the point of absence of jurisdiction. 2-A. It is, however, contended that the Authority has the jurisdiction to grant lump sum compensation on account of mental torture caused on account of delay, as in this case. Reliance is placed on the wording of section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. For facility of reference the aforesaid provision is reproduced:-- 15 . ................................................... (2) ................................................... (3) When any application under subsection (2) is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and, after such further inquiry (if any) as may be necessary; may without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other person is liable under this Act, direct the refund to the employed person or, if the applicant is one of the heirs of an employed person the payment to such applicant, of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding ten rupees in the latter: Provided that no direction for the payment of compensation shall be made in the case of delayed wages if the authority is satisfied that the delay was due to:- (a) bona fide error or bona fide dispute as to the amount payable to the employed person; or (b) the occurrence of an emergency, or the existence of exceptional circumstances, such that the person responsible for the payment of wages was unable, though exercising responsible diligence, to make prompt payment; or (c) the failure of the employed person to apply for or accept payment.

3. The analysis of the above statutory provision shows that the Authority to grant compensation is restricted to a maximum of ten times of the amount deducted and in the case of delayed wages a sum not exceeding ten rupees. The proviso further enjoins the Authority to keep in consideration the facts/conditions mentioned in (a), (b) and (c). There is no power with the Authority, at least none has been pointed out whereby the Authority is empowered to grant compensation of the lump sum amount on account of delayed wages and mental torture caused by the delay and on account of litigation. The Authority is not a Court or a Tribunal of general jurisdiction. It is bound by the law creating it which is the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.

4. The perusal of the order of the Authority shows that it has not given a finding as to how much has been deducted. In fact it seems it is not a case of deduction of wages but a case for withholding payment of Provident Fund, Fauji Foundation Gratuity, L.C.M. Gratuity and Labour Laws Gratuity which add up to Rs.19,013.94. In such a case of non-payment the Authority could grant compensation which could not exceed ten rupees. The figure of Rs.10 looks ridiculous in the present times but the law has to be administered as it is. It is for the Legislature to amend the law and not for the Courts. In view of the above analysis the Labour Appellate Tribunal has acted correctly in revising and recalling the order of compensation of Rs.5,000.

5. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./A-195/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.