2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 12349 of 1997, 12350 of 11997, 12351 of 1997 and 12352 of 1997, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions.

2. The petitioners through the Constitutional petitions have challenged the orders dated 8‑12‑1996 of respondent No.

1. The Compensation Commissioner/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Sialkot, whereby awards have been made in favour of the private contesting respondents for the payment of their dues and a decree has been issued in their favour.

3. The petitioner has not availed the alternate remedies available to it before invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner has the remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Labour Court and, on failing thereof a further remedy of a revision petition under section 38(3‑A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The maintainability of writ petition has, thus; been questioned by the respondents.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy of an appeal and further remedy of revision are not adequate remedies because to avail such a remedy under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, the petitioner has to deposit the amount payable through the impugned order. It is further submitted shat the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction because the claim‑is lodged by the private contesting respondents were time‑barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed his reliance on Town Committee, Gakhar Mandi, Gujranwala v. The Authority Under the Payment of Wages Act and 57 others (1998 SCMR 1382), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has granted leave to consider the similar issue of the maintainability of the writ petitions and to consider as to whether the remedy of an appeal provided under the relevant law is adequate or efficacious as the appellant is required to deposit the entire decretal amount before availing of such remedy. It is, however, an admitted position that so far this issue in regard to this particular law has not been decided by the Honourable Supreme Court.

5. The writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not maintainable if the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedies available to him and if the petitioner has not availed the same before invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction. In M/s. Ghafoor Textile Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Fazal Imam and another (PLD 1981 Karachi 534), it was held that the remedy of an appeal under section 17(1)(a) of Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) was an adequate remedy notwithstanding condition of deposit of amount payable under direction of Authority appealed against and, therefore, the petition invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 filed without availing of such remedy was held to be not maintainable. Reference in this regard can also be made to I.C.I. Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Court, etc. (1999 PLC 13), wherein also the writ petition was held to be not maintainable because the remedy of an appeal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance was not availed before filing the writ petition.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the claim of the private respondents was time‑barred, therefore, the Authority had no jurisdiction to award a decree in their favour, has no force. The issue as to whether the claim is barred by time is dependent on facts of each and every case. Even otherwise in Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi v. Sindh Labour Court No. V. Karachi and 2 others (1988 PLC 648), it has been held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is empowered to entertain even a time‑barred application for settling a claim for wages. It was further held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and Labour Court, have jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation and the finding on such question being not without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, would not warrant interference by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

7. In view of the abovementioned, these writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, with an observation that the petitioner may invoke the alternate remedies of appeals and revisions before invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T.M‑141/L Petitions dismissed.