1995 PLP 396 (PLC)

Abdul Hakeem Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1995. This order shall dispose of seventeen Revision Petitions bearing Nos.GA‑2/95‑Punjab to GA‑18/95‑Punjab.

2. The respondents are the employees of the Pakistan Railways under the administrative control of the petitioner. By way of application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, they separately preferred certain claims as difference in the rates of house rent, bicycle allowance and medical allowance for the period from 1st of April, 1991 to 30th of June, 1992. The petitioner resisted the claims. The Authority under the payment of Wages Act (for Railway), Gujranwala vide order, dated 15th of June, 1994 accepted the claims of the respondents and directed the petitioner to deposit the amounts awarded to the respondents within thirty days for disbursement to them.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala on 21st of July, 1994. Alongwith the appeals, the petitioner filed certificate showing that the amounts awarded to the respondents had been deposited on 21st of July, 1994 as the Authority was on leave from 17th of July, 1994 to 20th of July, 1994. The learned Labour Court vide orders, dated 18th of October, 1994 dismissed the appeals on the ground that the amounts awarded to the respondents had not been deposited within thirty days from the date of the order of the Authority. Hence these revision petitions.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that these revision petitions are incompetent as the orders passed by the Labour Court in appeals from the orders of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act are not revisable by this Tribunal under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This controversy stands resolved by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Hussain and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others (PLD 1991 SC 385), wherein it has been held that a Labour Court, even where it exercises jurisdiction under other laws, does not act as a special forum outside the ambit of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and, therefore, the Labour Appellate Tribunal, in its revisional jurisdiction, is competent to revise an order made by the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In view of this precedent, the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents loses its force.

5. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appeals on the short ground that the petitioner had not deposited the amounts awarded to the respondents within thirty days from the date of the orders of the Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this ground did not justify the dismissal of the appeals as the amounts in question were deposited before the appeals were filed. It is admitted that the appeals were filed within time. Section 17, subsection (1), clause (a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides the no appeal against the direction of the Authority shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with the Authority the amount payable under the direction appealed against. The above provision of law does not contemplate that an appeal shall not lie if the amount payable under the direction is not deposited within the time specified thereby. If the appeal is otherwise within time and the amount is deposited with the Authority before it is filed, it is quite competent. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents has cited Chief Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (1983 PLC 1235). This precedent is, however, distinguishable, inasmuch as in that the amount was not deposited within the time allowed by the Authority as well as for filing the appeal under the law. Since before filing the appeals in the Labour Court within time, the petitioner had deposited the amounts with the Authority, they could not be dismissed on the ground that the amounts had not been deposited within the time specified in the orders of the Authority. .

6. For the foregoing reasons, these revision petitions are accepted, the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court are set aside and the appeals are remanded to it for decision on merits in accordance with law.

7. The parties shall appear before the learned Labour Court on 29th March, 1995. H.B.T./781/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition accepted.