1982 P I (PLP)

‑‑‑ S. 15 ‑ Withheld wages ‑ Remedy lies with Authority under Payment of Wages Act‑Resort to general forum of Labour Court under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Not possible Workman claiming wages for period he remained out of service after being re‑instated ‑ Matter, within exclusive jurisdiction of Authority and petition to Labour Court, not maintainable Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A. P L D 1976 Lah.528 and P L C 1976 Kar. 517 rel. DECISION Muhammad Ishaque Bus Conductor has brought this application under sect‑ion 25‑A, I. R. O, claiming that the respondent has illegally withheld his wages from 8th May, 1979 to 11th February, 1980 and that the latter may be directed to pay those full wages with costs.

2. The relevant facts are that consequent upon a raid Muhammad Ishaque was found to have charged certain fare from the passengers but had issued no tickets. After holding a regular enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 31st January, 1979. He, however, challeng ed that order of dismissal and the Labour Court vide its order dated 8th May, 1979 copy Exh. P‑1 passed an order of his re‑instatement in service, but no back benefit was allowed, Thereafter vide order Exh. P‑2 the petitioner was allowed duty but on the next day dated 13th May, 1979 his services were transferred to PRTB. Actually as in the original order of, re‑instatement dated 8th May, 1979 it was observed that the petitioner's employer was PRTB and that the District Manager of PUTC was in no way competent to terminate the petitioner's services, it was for this reason that Muhammad Ishaque's services were placed at the disposal of PRTB. Feeling aggrieved against the aforementioned order of transfer, the petitioner had made another application to the same Labour Court, which vide order dated 11th February, 1980 copy Exh. P‑4 had again held the order of transfer to be illegal, void and mala fide. Thus by Exh. P‑4 the respondent was required to accept the petitioner in service in PUTC, Kot Lakhpat Depot, Lahore. The petitioner contends that he had been willing to perform his duty but the respondent had illegally withheld him from the post from 8thMay, 1979 to 11th February, 1980. Accordingly it is urged that the respondent could not have refused the payment of wages of that period.

3. Apparently Muhammad Ishaque is raising an issue regarding the withholding or delaying the wages of the period ranging from 8th May, 1979 to 11th February, 1980. It is nowhere denied that as a Bus Con ductor the petitioner is a "Worker", who even stands covered under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It is however, argued that the remedy regarding delayed wages being available for both under the I. R. O. and even in the Payment of Wages Act, the petitioner is entitled to exercise his choice regarding the forum. Thus, irrespective of the factual part of the case, the question that falls for determination is as to whether the petitioner can challenge the aforementioned action of illegally withheld or delayed wages in a Labour Court, or that the remedy can be enforced only under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, before an Authority appointed for that purpose. By this time the consensus of opinion of the Labour Courts including that of the Appellate Tribunal goes to lay down that there being two remedies available in two different laws it is open to an aggrieved person to exercise his choice in the selection of forum. Notwithstanding this view it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the Labour Courts have not considered a legal proposition inas much as that when a right is created by a particular statute and provisions for the enforcement of that right are also made in it then whether the remedy can be sought under a general law. What exactly the respondent is pressing is that the Payment of Wages Act being a special law which deals with the subject matter of non‑payment of wages, delayed wages and illegal deductions of wages, the forum to challenge such illegal deductions or delayed wages would be that provided under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. It is contended that under section 15 the appointed Authority is a Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, because, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 not only creates a right but also provides the remedy enforceable through a particular forum. It is well‑settled rule of interpretation that when a Special Tribunal to deal with a specified A subject:matter is constituted, %the same excludes the jurisdiction of Tribunal or Authority which deals with general matters. Reliance o behalf of the respondent has been placed on two reported authorities via. P L D 1976 Lah. 528 and P L C 1976 Kar.

517. The former judgment was delivered in a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, whereas the latter in a similar constitutional petition by Karachi Bench. In P L D 1976 Lah. 528, the question involved was regarding the payment of gratuity in which it was observed that since the right for gratuity was created by Standing Order No. 12 (5) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commer cial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, whereas the remedy for its enforcement was provided both under section 25‑A,

1. R. O and section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, the aggrieved person could have exercised a choice of forum. Hence ; it was held that a Labour Court was competent to exercise jurisdiction. Notwithstanding this conclusion, it was pre pounded that when both the right and remedy are provided in a particular statute and the forum is also constituted there under, then in comparison to the general law, the jurisdiction would exclusively vest in the Authority created under a special statute. Discus sing the question of payment of gratuity, it was stated that since under the Payment of Wages Act no right for payment of gratuity was lying guaranteed and the procedure given in section 15 of that Act for the enforcement of that right was insufficient and as gratuity" was specifically excluded from the definition of "Wages", the adjudication of a case of payment of gratuity under the Payment of Wages Act, was not possible, Obviously, since both the right and remedy were not provided it was for this reason that it was held that the petitioner could have invoked in aid the general provisions of law, i. e. section 25‑A, I. R. O. In the instant case, however, it cannot be said that there exists no provision to deal with withheld wages or that there is no forum to deal with this question of delayed wages. Sections 3 to 5 of the Payment of Wages Act enjoin an employer to fix a day for the payment of Wages. Even the maximum period within which the wages are to be paid is also specified. Section 15 of the Act invests jurisdiction in the Authority to deal with an application of an aggrieved person regarding delayed wages as also to pass the order for payment. Thus obviously there is a special forum an the Payment of Wages Act which is also providing special provisions of law for the $ exercise of jurisdiction and enforcement of remedy. Hence on the bass of the rule of interpretation given in (P L D 1976 Lab. 528) the jurisdiction to deal with the point of delayed or withheld wages in the instant case would exclusively vest in the "Authority" appointed under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. P L C 1976 Kar. 517 is another judg ment directly supporting the view taken in the authority quoted above.

4. Since the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a special enactment deal ing with the special subject‑matter of Payment of Wages, delayed or, withheld wages and as its section 15 provides a special forum for the enforcement of remedy only the "Authority" appointed under section 151 shall have an exclusive jurisdiction to decide issues concerned with Wages. Accordingly, I hold that the instant case of withheld or delayed wages lies within the exclusively jurisdiction of the Authority appointed under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The Labour Court having no jurisdiction, the petition is returned for presentation to a forum of competent jurisdiction.