1989 PLP 638 (PLC(CS))
ZEESHAN ALI SHAH Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HARAPPA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, SAHIWAL
| Citation | 1989 PLP 638 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZEESHAN ALI SHAH Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HARAPPA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, SAHIWAL |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 638 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 638 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 638 (PLC(CS)) (ZEESHAN ALI SHAH Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HARAPPA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, SAHIWAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdul Hameed Talib for Petitioner.
- Javed Altaf for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Application for deduction of wages for specified period with ten times compensation rejected by Authority on ground of lack of jurisdiction‑‑Appeal against such finding was dismissed as barred by time‑‑Plea in revision that as order of Authority was void, no question of limitation would arise in appeal, repelled‑‑Order of Authority was not void as same was not without jurisdiction, as Authority had to decide whether it had or had not jurisdiction and if such finding was erroneous same could not be termed as void‑‑Even void order has to be challenged when same has been enforced, period of limitation whereof starts from the date of its enforcement‑‑After excluding days spent in getting copy, appeal was time‑barred by three days. (b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Condonation of delay in filing appeal‑‑Provisions of S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908, were not applicable to proceedings under S. 17, Payment of Wages Act‑‑Where a time‑barred appeal had been filed, Court had no jurisdiction to condone delay.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Condonation of delay in filing appeal‑‑Provisions of S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908, were not applicable to proceedings under S. 17, Payment of Wages Act‑‑Where a time‑barred appeal had been filed, Court had no jurisdiction to condone delay. Rana Abdul Hameed Talib for Petitioner. Javed Altaf for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 10‑5‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan in his appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is against law. Vide the impugned order the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as time- barred holding that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable.
2. The petitioner had applied under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for an alleged deduction of wages for the period from 23‑4‑1984 to 30‑9‑1985, with ten times compensation. The petition was dismissed on the ground that the wages exceeded Rs.1.000 so the Authority had no jurisdiction: Admittedly, the appeal was time‑barred by three days. It has been argued that as the order of the Authority was void, no question of limitation for challenging in appeal could arise. Firstly, the order of the Authority was not void as it was not without jurisdiction. The Authority had to decide whether it had or not jurisdiction. If the finding was erroneous;`it does not mean that it was void. Secondly, even void order is to be challenged when it is enforced and period of limitation starts from the date it is enforc; d. In the presen case the petitioner had to get the order of the Authority set aside and the case rmanded for decision on merits, so he could A not ignore it. In the circumstances, the period of limitation started running from the date of the order. After excluding the days spent in getting copy, the appeal was time‑barred by three days. Section 5 of the Limitation Act says it would apply if it has been made applicable by an enactment. There is no provision in section 17 or any other section of the Payment of Wages Act that section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the appeals brought under the said section. So the learned lower appellate Court has rightly found that section 5 of the‑ Limitation Act is not applicable. Since the appeal was time‑barred and the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay, it was rightly dismissed as time‑barred.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is consequently, dismissed. AA./638/Lb. P Revision dismissed.