1989 PLP 877 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ S. 15(1)‑‑Territorial jurisdiction of Authority under the Act‑‑Residence of applicant, not relevant‑‑Area where deduction of wages was made or applicant claiming delayed wages was employed was to determine territorial jurisdiction‑ Railway employee a Train Clerk worked as Guard at L‑‑Claim relating to difference of pay of Train Clerk and Guard allegedly not paid‑‑Claim brought before Authority at O on grounds that when application was made employee was serving at O‑‑Claimed pay admittedly not paid at L‑‑Authority at L and not at O, held, would have territorial jurisdiction. Saifur Rchman for Petitioner. Saifullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th April, 1989. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 8‑3‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the order dated 12‑9‑1988 recorded by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was set aside, is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The learned Authority had accepted the claim of the petitioner for the period from 4‑6‑1982 to 7‑7‑1987 with three times compensation. The facts are that the petitioner, who substantively is a train clerk was made to work as Guard and he worked as such from 9‑6‑7982 to 7‑7‑1987. The learned lower appellate Court has held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Okara had no territorial jurisdiction and that the Authority at Lahore only had the jurisdiction. Admittedly the respondent worked as Guard at Lahore during the disputed period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since at the time the petitioner brought the application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act he was serving at Okara, therefore the Authority of the said place had jurisdiction. Section 1.5(1) of the Payment of Wages Act is clear on the point. The relevant portion of subsection (1) reads as under:‑‑ Decide for any specific area all claims arising out of deductions from wages, or non‑payment of dues relating to provident fund or gratuity payable under any law or delay in the payment of wages, of persons employed or paid in that area. As is evident from the facts narrated above, the claim of the petitioner is for the difference between the pay of the train clerk and of the Guard. Although he was posted as Guard but he was paid wages of his substantive post of train clerk. The words "for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages of persons employed or paid in that area" are very significant and show that only that Authority has jurisdiction in whose area deductions have been made or the person claming deducted or delayed wages was employed or paid. Admittedly the pay of the scale of guard was not paid to the petitioner at Lahore, therefore, if it amounted to deduction, it was made at Lahore. This is admitted that during the relevant period the petitioner remained posted at Lahore, therefore he was employed and paid wages in the area of Lahore. There is no provision in the Payment of Wages Act that a person is entitled to apply to the Authority which has jurisdiction at the place where such a person resides. In the absence of such a provision the petitioner was not entitled to move the Authority (Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal) under the Payment of Wages Act, Okara on the ground that he was, at the time he made application and claimed wages, working there. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, rightly held that the learned Authority at Okara had no territorial jurisdiction. However, since the competent authority has not decided the case, the learned lower appellate Court should not have made observations with regard to the merits of the case. The said observations, therefore, are set aside so that the Authority tinder the Payment of Wages Act who has territorial jurisdiction may be able to decide the case with unprejudiced mind. With these observations the revision is dismissed. A.E./671 /Lb. P Order accordingly.