2012 PLP 378 (PLC)

ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).

This revision application under section 55(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008/2010 has been preferred by the applicant/informant Mst. Noor Jehan against an order dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.I, Karachi, in Appeal No.10 of 2010 under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 whereby appeal filed by the management Messrs Akhtar Textile Industries has been disposed of and the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority Under Payment of Wages Act, East Division, Karachi (hereinafter referred to be as the learned Authority), has been set aside and the appeal was remanded back. I have heard Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi learned counsel for the applicant/informant and Mr. Muhammad Humayun learned Counsel for respondent No.2 management. After going through the record and proceedings of the case and arguments, I have come to the conclusion as under. This is the second round of litigation, in the first round the claim of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 15-1-2007 and the applicant preferred appeal under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before learned Labour Court No.I, Karachi and the learned Presiding Officer vide its order dated 29-7-2009 remanded the matter to the learned Authority for fresh decision after evidence on merits, especially on claim of the applicant in the following words:

"From the perusal of record it transpires that the issues in respect of the claim of the applicant do require evidence as the date of appointment is controversial, therefore, the claim of the applicant requires to be decided after taking evidence." After remand, learned Authority after framing following issues and recording evidence decided the matter again, but this time in favour of the applicant:

"(1) Whether signatory of written statement was competent to sign? (2) Whether matter is to be disposed of in terms of Order VIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. because written statement has not been signed by a competent person? (3) Whether applicant is entitled to the relief claimed or any part thereof?" Learned Authority had passed the decision in favour of the applicant while concluding in the following words:

"I, therefore, direct the opposite party to deposit the amount of applicant's claim of Rs.10,99,

268. Opponent is directed to deposit the entire amount with this Authority within thirty (30) days hereof which may be paid to applicant." Whenever a Court framed issues and recorded the evidence, according to the issues when no amendment has been sought on behalf of any of the party, then no party can agitate against the same in any forum, except by adopting the proper way provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is settled law that the result of first two issues regarding maintainability and other things, the last issue based upon the decision on earlier issue. In the present case, first and second issue and the conclusion of the learned Authority is as under:

"Applicant, therefore, succeeds in view of the written statement not being admissible and his claim is allowed accordingly." Once it is held by the learned Authority that written statement not being admissible, hence there could be no defence on behalf of the respondent as because the signatory of the written statement has no authority on behalf of the respondent/Board of Directors of the company, so in absence of any such evidence/ written statement, the claim of the applicant has gone un-rebutted and the same should be admitted as such which has been done by the learned Authority. Whereas, the learned Labour Court being the Appellate Authority has not discussed the said fact and discussed the other issues and without discussing the same has held that the learned Authority has not properly discussed each and every claim separately. The need to discuss each and every claim separately can only be arisen when there is a defence on the part of the respondent. Whereas, the learned Labour Court in appeal has not set aside such findings of the learned Authority and without doing so learned Labour Court cannot substitute the findings of the learned Authority on the third issue, hence I am of the view that the findings of the learned Labour Court are not based on proper appreciation of facts and law. Therefore, the same are set aside and the order dated 25-1-2010 of the learned Authority is restored to its original position. The respondents are accordingly directed to release the amount to the applicant Mst. Noor Jehan within thirty days otherwise the learned Authority may take appropriate legal action against the respondents management. HBT/5/SLT Order accordingly