1984 PLP 1132 (PLC(CS))

P L D 1970 Lah. 6 and P L D 1968 Lah. 1205 held not applicable. Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. Date of hearing : 11th January, 1982. This revision arises from the order, dated 30th November, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the appeal brought by the petitioner against the order, dated 31st January, 1981 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was dismissed, on the ground that the adjudged amount sanctioned by the Authority had not been deposited and certificate of deposits filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no doubt such a direction is given in proviso to section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, but since the appeal was not rejected when it was filed and was entertained, therefore, when the amount had been deposited and the certificate of deposits produced, it could not be dismissed on this ground. This argument ex facie is fallacious. According to the proviso to section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, the very appeal does not lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the Authority to the effect that the amount had been deposited. It is immaterial whether it is rejected as soon as it is presented or is rejected after some time on the same ground. It appears chat it was not brought to the notice of the lower Court at the time the appeal was presented that it was not accompanied by the certificate of deposit and for this reason it was not rejected at that time. Thereafter, when the Court was apprised of this fact, it was justified in dismissing it as the mandatory provision of law had not been complied with.

3. The other argument of the learned counsel is that the, order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was a nullity, inasmuch as only one person had made application for the delivery of Rest and Recreation Allowance. in respect of 66 persons and the other claimants did not make any application. This argument is not correct. The very title shows that not only Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, but 65 other persons had also applied for the payment of Rest and Recreation Allowance. Even if it be said that since the remaining employees had not signed the petition, this would not be sufficient ground for ignoring the mandatory provision of law, according to which, an appeal is incompetent if the memorandum is not accompanied by the certificate of deposit of the amount. Learned counsel has cited two authorities but they are not germane to the facts of the present case. In P L D 1970 Lah. 6, the appeal was time‑barred and it was held :‑ "An act or an order which is nullity, has simply to be ignored and proceedings need not be initiated to get it annulled. In case, however, the order or action which is a nullity is to be enforced against the person affected by it, that person of that time will be entitled to challenge the same on the basis of it being a nullity. In such circumstances, the cause of action, in so far as that person is concerned will arise only when the attempt is made to enforce such an action or order against, him, and therefore, there will be no question of limitation involved, in the sense that, the date of order, which is a nullity, for the purpose of start of limitation, will become insignificant." In P L D 1968 Lah. 1205 second appeal was not accompanied by the copy of the trial Court's judgment since till that time copy had not been supplied to the appellant in that case. The copy was delivered to him on 17th Octo ber, 1958 and it was filed in the High Court on 6th November, 1958. This is apparent that in both the authorities cited by learned counsel the ques tion of limitation was involved, but in the present case, no question of limi tation arises. The appeal brought before the Labour Court was admittedly within time, but the only defect was that memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by the certificate of deposit of the amount. So the authorities are not helpful. Learned counsel has also tried to argue that for depositing the amount sanctioned is to be taken from the Finance Department and for this revision the amount could not be deposited before filing the appeal. Law is one and the same for every person and there is no force in the argument that since the petitioner is a Department of the Government or that time is required for getting sanction from the Finance Department, the non‑deposit of the amount be, ignored. If the intention of the Legislature had been that the provision made in section 17(1) shall not apply to Government Departments, then a clear direction could have been made in it, or the Government Departments exempted from its operation. The petitioner knows that according to section 17(1), the amount was to be deposited and certificate filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal, therefore, if an attempt had been made, the amount could have been deposited and the certificate filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal.) If the matter is left‑to be decided in routine, then the slackness. of the persons concerned cannot be a ground for ignoring the mandatory) provisions of law. Where law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner and not otherwise. The amount was deposited after the expiry of the period for bringing the appeal, so there is absolutely no scope to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. The Labour Court's order is justified and there is no fore in the revision, which is dismissed it, limine. A.E Appeal dismissed.