1984 PLP 1217 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 17 and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 35 (5) (d), 37 & 38 (3‑a)‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal‑Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 refusing to summon record‑Such order of Authority not appealable before Labour Court‑Labour Court rejecting appeal on grounds that same did not lie‑Order of Labour Court challenged in appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑Impugned order of Labour Court, held, neither appealable nor open to revision before Labour Appellate Tribunal‑Impugned order of Labour Court, in circum stances, held, could not be said to have been passed under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as envisaged by S. 35 (5) (d) there of Remedy for appellant, in circumstances, held, was to wait for final decision by Authority and then challenge same on ground also that his prayer for summoning of record was disallowed unjustifiably. Farooq for Appellant. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1983. As same question of law is involved in 'the two appeals captioned above, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The appellant, Fazal‑ur‑Rehman, brought two separate petitions under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of delayed wages for different periods. In the said petitions he applied for the summoning of certain record from his employer. The said applications were disallowed. The appellant challenged the orders before the learned Labour Court invoking its appellate jurisdiction. The appeals were disal lowed on the ground they did not lie against an order refusing to summon record. The said order passed ‑by the learned Labour Court has been challenged in the titled appeals.

3. An order refusing to summon record is not an order directing to pay an amount or refusing to issue direction to pay the amount claimed, so no appeal lies to the Labour Court. The appeals were rightly dismissed. There is no provisions that an order passed by the Authority under sec tion 17 of the Payment of Wages Act can further be challenged in appeal before this Tribunal. The appeals cannot be treated as revisions, for they have not been passed under any provision of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969. Section 35 (5) (d) allows the Labour Courts to exercise other powers as have been conferred upon them under any other law. I any such powers have been exercised, a revision lies to this tribunal, for it can be said that section 35 (5) (d) has allowed the exercise of such powers. But since section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act does not authorise the Labour Courts to hear appeals against the orders rejecting the prayer of summoning certain record, it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court has passed any order under the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969.

4. The remedy for the appellant was to wait till the final decision of the case and if the case had been decided against him, then to challenge it on this ground also that his prayer for summoning of record. was dis allowed unjustifiably.

5. As a result of what has been said above, the appeals are dismissed in limine as incompetent. A. E. Appeal dismissed.