Find a Lawyer

Petition under section 17, Payment of Wages Act and section 44, Punjab Courts Act, for revision of the order of Maqbul Ahmad, District Judge, Gujranwala, dated the 9th May 1953, affirming that of A. M. Leghari, District Magistrate (Authority under the Payments of Wages Act for Gujrat area), Gujrat, dated the 8th February 1952.

Person competent to file appeal‑Where another--Person apart from the employer is responsible for to payment of wages appeal must be filed by that person and not the employer.

Section 17, clause (a) provides that an appeal may be filed "by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3, which expression can only mean that an appeal is to be filed either by the employer or, in cases where some other person is responsible for the payment of wages, by that other person.

S. A. Mahmud, Assistant Advocate‑General, for Petitioner.

Zafar Ali Qureshi, for Respondent.

.‑The opposite party Tohid Hussain, an employee of the N. W. Railway in the‑Rawalpindi Division, applied to the District Magistrate, Gujrat, as the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Gujrat Area, for directions under subsection 3 of section 15 of Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936) in respect of his wages for certain periods. He im pleaded the Divisional Superintendent of the Rawalpindi Divi sion, who was the Pay Master for the Division, as the opposite party. Aggrieved by the directions dated the 8th of February, 1952, of the said Authority, an appeal was filed under section 17 of the Act by the Litigation Inspector, N: W. Railway on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan in the Court of the District Judge, Gujranwala, exercising jurisdiction for Gujrat District. Three different Litigation Inspectors appeared in the Court of the District judge from time to time who were each of them given a power of attorney by the General Manager, N.‑W. Railway. By his order dated the 9th of May, 1953, the learned District judge dismissed the appeal as incompetent on the ground that it had not been filed by the proper person, namely, the Pay Master of the Rawalpindi Division. This petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed in this Court on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan questioning the legality of the order of the appellate Court.

Section 17 (1) allows an appeal to be filed, inter alia "by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3". According to the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner, an option to file an appeal has been given both to the employer and the person responsible for the payment of wages. If his contention were correct, the wording of clause (a) of section 17 (1) should have been "by an employer or the Person responsible for the payment of wages ...." The argument entirely overlooks the significance of the word 'other' in clause (a) as it stands : "by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3". Under section 3 it is provided that generally the employer shall be responsible for payment of wages, but in the case of railways, a person nominated by the railway administra tion in this behalf shall be responsible for such payment. The responsibility therefore, rests, in the case of railways, upon the person nominated alone. As there are some employers who are themselves responsible for payment of wages and others who have the option, under section 3, to substitute' other persons in their places as persons ,responsible for payment of wages, it was, therefore, necessary to provide in section 17, clause (a), that an appeal may be filed "by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section ", which expression can only mean that an appeal is to be filed either by the employer or, in cases where some other person is responsible for the payment of wages, by that other person.

The above conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that the entire scheme of the Payment of Wages Act concerns itself primarily only with the person responsible for payment of wages whether he be the employer himself or the person responsible to the employer or the person named or nominated by him under section 3 of the Act. The responsibility for offences under the Act, according to section 20, rests upon the person responsible for the payment of wages. Section 19 provides :‑

"When the authority referred to in section 15 or the Court, referred to in section 17 is unable to recover from any person (other than an employer), responsible under section 3 for the payment of wages any amount directed by such authority under section 15 or section 17 to be paid by such person, the authority shall recover the amount from the employer of the employed person concerned.

This clearly shows that the intention of the Legislature was that where a person, other than the employer himself, is responsible for payment of the wages, it is against such a person that an order for payment of wages should be initially made under section 15 or section 17 (i.e., on appeal). The employer, where he is not the person responsible for payment of wages under section 3, comes into the picture, by virtue of the provisions in section 19, only when the wages cannot, in the first instance, be recovered from such other person.

For the foregoing reasons. I uphold the order of the learned District judge and dismiss this petition with costs.

A. H.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.