2016 PLP 844 (CLC)

SHAHAB SARKI, J.

It is inter alia contended by the petitioners that they were working under the Respondent No.3 Executive Engineer Highway Division Jacobabad and that they were working within the meaning of Workmen, and the Labour Laws are fully applicable to their services, more particularly the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Cost of Living Relief Act, 1973. It is further contended that they alongwith such other workers, totaling 321 in number, were not given the relief/allowance under the Cost of Living Relief Act, 1973 and therefore they filed an Application under Section 6-B of the Cost of Living Relief Act, 1973 R/W Sections 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, the "Authority" under Payment of Wages Act, 1936, vide Application No.04 of 1999. After detailed hearing of the matter, the then Commissioner of the Authority namely Sajjad Hussain Ansari allowed the application of the petitioners on 14.12.2007 and held that the 321 applicants were entitled to payment of Rs.30,576,674/- and the opponents (present respondents Nos.2 and 3) were directed to deposit the said amount before the "Authority" within 30 days.

2. The respondents thereafter preferred an Appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Sindh Labour Court No.VIII at Larkana, which was disposed of as infructuous on 31.10.2008. The relevant para of the said order is as follows:-- "In the present case appellants have failed to submit deposit certificate of authority record further shows that the appellant No.1, issued Cross cheque in the name of attorney on 30.08.2008, after expiry of more than 08 months during execution proceedings. Appeal filed without deposit certificate is not maintainable under the law. More over, appellants instead of deposit amount with authority have paid the amount payable under the directions to the respondents directly, therefore in my view appeal became infructuous. In view of above facts and circumstances, the appeal in hand is hereby dismissed without giving notice to other side with no order as to costs".

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application before the "Authority" was moved through an Attorney who acted on behalf of 321 applicants. It is further contended that repeated reminders were issued by the respondent No.6/"Authority" but on 21.08.2008 another letter/direction was issued by the "Authority" to the respondent No.3 directing him to either deposit the amount of Rs.30,576,674/- before the Court or in the name of the Attorney of the applicants. Thereafter vide letter dated 30.08.2008 the then District Officer Roads, Jacobabad, Engineer Abdul Khaliq Panhiar issued cross cheque bearing Nos.A-34364/A-859100 to the respondent No.8, who was the Attorney of the applicants.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the then Engineer (respondent No.7), the then Commissioner of Authority (respondent No.9) and their Attorney (respondent No.8) were all in collusion with each other and instead of depositing the due amount before the Authority, they malafidely arranged to hand over the cross cheques for the entire amount in the name of the respondent No.8, who did not hand the money over to the petitioners but misappropriated the entire amount. The learned counsel further contends that as per Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, when the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had filed their appeal, it should have been accompanied by a Certificate of the "Authority" to the effect that the respondents have deposited the amount payable and since the same was not done, the appeal could not have been entertained. He further contends that the appeal was held to be infructuous as the respondents Nos.2 and 3 made a statement before the appellate Authority that they have made payment of the amount due. The learned counsel has further argued that the respondent No.9, the then Commissioner of the "Authority" should have passed orders for deposit of the amount in Court but instead he directed that the payment could be made directly to the Attorney which, in his view, is not warranted by law. He has therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioners their due amount as ordered by the "Authority".

5. The learned Assistant A.G. representing the official respondents has argued that the amount as ordered by the "Authority", was paid to the petitioners, through their Attorney' hence there is no pending claim against the official Department. He has further submitted that if the petitioners have not received their due amount then they may take appropriate action against their Attorney.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and gone through the comments.

7. It is not denied that the petitioners and others were granted compensation vide order of the "Authority" dated 14.12.2007. The bone of contention, however, is not whether the respondents made the payment but the main issue is as to who received the payment and whether he was entitled to receive the same or not. The relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.8 is essentially one of principal and attorney and it is not the case of the petitioners that they have ever repudiated the authority given to the said respondent. In the absence of such repudiation of the authority letter, the acts done by the attorney would be construed as acts done by the principal, and the principal is bound by such acts of his agent. It is also the obligation of the agent/attorney to make payment and render accounts to his principal for the amount received, and this obligation is per Section 218 of the Contract Act, 1872. If the agent fails to account for the amount received, then this would give rise to a cause of action to the principal to seek recovery of the sums due to him. In this regard we are fortified by a judgment cited as 2011 SCMR 153 M/s Islamabad Farming Co-operative Society and others v. Ghulam Abbas Khan and others.

8. A perusal of the material available shows that as a matter of fact the amount due and payable to the 321 applicants, including the petitioners, was made available by the official respondents and as per the directions of the Authority the same was duly paid to and acknowledged by, the respondent No.8 who was admittedly the Attorney of the 321 applicants. A bare perusal of the said Power of Attorney/Authority reveals that he was also given full authority to collect and receive the amount of wages/claim as and when finally adjudicated upon and also to do all incidental and ancillary acts in this regard. We have also examined the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and its relevant provisions and we find that there is no express bar on filing an application or receiving any payment through an attorney.

9. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the collusion between the respondents Nos.7, 8 and 9 and a misappropriation of the amount is concerned, record reveals that a case has been registered against the aforementioned respondents before the Provincial Anti-Corruption authorities for offences of fraud, forgery, and criminal misappropriation, and the petitioners are witnesses in those proceedings.

10. In view of what has been discussed above we find that the petition is not filed on the basis of cogent and legal grounds, hence it is dismissed alongwith listed application. The petitioners shall however be at liberty to seek recovery of the amounts due to them from their attorney/agent. ZC/M-203/Sindh Petition dismissed.