1989 PLP 948 (PLC(CS))

H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Sadiq Ali Hashmi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 273h March, 1988. This is a revision brought under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 reporting teat the order dated 25‑1‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha camp at Faisalabad is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts are that the respondents brought an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority which was accepted and the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.10,303 to be paid to the respondents. The petitioner challenged the order before the learned lower appellate Court in an appeal which has been dismissed on the ground that the pay order and not the amount in cash was deposited as required by section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The learned lower appellate Court has also observed that the judgment has not been recorded by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act according to the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5, C.P.C. No finding has been recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court as regard the entitlement of the respondents to the amount decreed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Depositing of cheque does not amount to the depositing of the amount in cash but depositing of pay order is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 17 .of the Payment of Wages Act. No question of dishonouring the pay order arises whereas in respect of a cheque it may be said that there is no amount lying in the account of the person drawing the same. Pay order is issued in the name of a particular person and it is an evidence of the fact that the amount mentioned in it is lying with the Bank for payment to the holder of the pay order. The learned lower Court appellate Court, therefore, wrongly held that the order was not complied with.

3. The learned lower appellate Court has also wrongly held that the decision was not properly recorded by the learned Authority. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 in reality are on the same point. There should have been only one issue in the shape of issue No. 3, because whatever is written in issue No. 2 is covered in issue No.

3. Issue No. 1 is to the effect whether Baboo Khan in the capacity of Manager or owner of the factory is not the proper party. In the written statement the objection is the same. In the written statement the factum of Baboo Khan being owner of the factory is not denied. Since he is the owner of the factory, he was rightly sued. If the objection had been that he was not the owner or the sole owner, of course the question could arise who else was owner or partner and should have been impleaded as a party. The learned lower appellate Court has not said that on the factual plan the order is not justified or that not all the respondents but only few of them were entitled. Anyhow, if the learned lower appellate Court had found that the case had not been properly decided, it may have remanded the case but since there was no defect in depositing the pay order the appeal could not be dismissed on this ground.

4. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is remanded to the learned lower appellate Court for redecision. A.E./544/Lb. P Revision accepted.