1983 PLP 1235 (PLC)

NAIMUDDIN, J.‑Respondents Nos.1 to 8 . joint filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, thereinafter called the Act), with a prayer that the . respondents may be directed to pay Rs. 2,349 being the amount deducted from wages of the respondents plus Rs. 23,940 being the amount of compensation; to them on the ground of illegal deduction of wages. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sukkur (hereinafter called the Authority), by the order dated 10th January, 1982, declared that the amount deducted from the wages‑of the respondents was illegal and ordered that the amount deducted from the wages of the respondents since November, 1978, which came to Rs. 4,027 upto December, 1981 and two times compensation for illegal deduction be deposited within 30 days of the order. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed an appeal under section 17 of the Act which was rejected on the ground that mandatory condition provided in the proviso to section 17 (1) of the Act was not complied with, inasmuch as the certificate of deposit of the amount awarded by the Authority was not filed alongwith the appeal. It is stated that the appeal was filed on 21st February, 1982, and admitted that when the appeal was filed the certificate as required by law was not filed. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had deposited the amount awarded with the Authority on 21st February,, 1982. But the Authority had not issued the" certificate. However, from the order of the Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. VIII, respondent No. 10, it is clear that certificate was not produced in spite of opportunity given to the petitioners to produce the same on or before 18th May, 1982. Therefore, respondent No. 10, by the order dated 29th May, 1982, rejected the appeal for non‑compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 17 of the Act. Under the order passed by the Authority the petitioner was required to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of order i.e. by 10th February, 1982. The period for filing of the appeal under section 17 of the Act is also 30 days. It is, therefore, clear that within the time allowed by the Authority as well as for filing the appeal under the law the amount was not deposited and the condition precedent for filing the appeal was not complied with. Further, `the certificate was not produced till 18th May, 1982, in spite of opportunity given to the petitioners. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the order passed by respondent No.

10. Whatever may be the cause for delay in obtaining the certificate and Whoever may be responsible for the delay in the grant of certificate, the order of respondent No. 10, impugned in this constitutional 'petition is according to law. It was however, submitted by the learned counsel for‑the petitioners that the order passed by the Authority was illegal as joint application was filed under section 16 of the Act and thereunder only Rs. 10 could be awarded as compensation. He further submitted that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the joint application. So far as the first submissions is concerned the petitioners themselves have annexed the copy of the application to the petition which appears at page 31 of the record and which shows that the application was filed under section 15 and not under section 16 of the Act as claimed. As regards second submission it is not stated why a joint application was not maintainable. Even otherwise the objection is too technical to be considered in the present jurisdiction particularly when non prejudice is shown to have been caused. Further, since the remedy by way of appeal was availed against the order of the Authority though without complying the condition precedent, now, therefore, if we allow to question the order of the Authority we would allow the petitioners to defeat the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Act. In any case, we have already considered the main objection raised before us against the order of the Authority and have found no substance in it for the reasons mention ed herein above. Moreover, it is disputed that the amount of compensation awarded under section 15 of the Act is in accord with the provisions thereof. We, therefore, dismiss this petition, however, in the circumstances of the case. leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A. E. Petition dismissed.