1986 PLP 893 (PLC)

Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioners. Wajihuddin Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 (in Civil Petition Ho. S‑59 of 1978 and for Respondent No. 3(in Petition No. 30 of 1979). Ali Amjad for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, 8, 10 to 12, 15 to 17, 19 to 21, 23 to 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 35 (in Petition No. S‑84 of 1979). Nemo for the Remaining Respondents (in all the 3 Petitions). Date of hearing: 30th January, 1986. All the three petitions are of indentical nature and they are proposed to be disposed of by one order herein under. Petition No. S‑59/78 is directed against an order, dated 19‑5‑1977 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation/ Authority under Payment of Wages Act, under sections 15 and 16 of the said Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in Case No. 59/75, and the order, dated 25‑9‑1977 of the Sind Labour Court No. 6 Hyderabad, in Appeal No. 2/77. whereby certain claims made by the Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 for Payment of Project Allowance were upheld with certain modifications. Similarly, the Petition No. S‑30/79 is directed against an order, dated 4‑11‑1978 under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act and the Order, dated 17‑1‑1979 by the Sind Labour Court No. 6, Hyderabad of the like nature. Petition No. S‑84/79 calls in question similar order of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act, dated 22‑6‑1978, and that of the Labour Court No. 6, Hyderabad, dated 7‑11‑1978, of the like nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners has agitated that the main question for consideration in the petitions is whether the respondents in the petitions could be awarded the allowance for the period falling beyond three years of the making of the applications for the relief. According to him, no relief could be granted beyond the period of three years of the making of the applications. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contestant respondents have contended that the grievance of the respondents constituted a continuing wrong and the time limit for three years for making an application contemplated under sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act could not be attracted in the light of the provisions of section 23 of the Limitation Act. During the course of the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties, it has been stated that the petitioners had deposited the amount of the respective claims upheld by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and they were withdrawn by the respondents. Since the impugned orders have been given effect to the petitions have become infructuous, and they are dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A. Petition dismissed