Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition No. QSA‑4 of 1982, decided on 20th January, 1982.
‑-----S. 17 (1)‑Proviso‑Appeal against order of authority‑Certificate of deposit of amount ordered by impugned order‑Attachment with Memorandum of appeal ‑ Mandatory requirement ‑ Applicable equally to Government Department‑Plea that payment and deposit of such amount needed sanction of Finance Department which could not be obtained within limitation period ‑ Held, no ground for indulgence by Labour Appellate Tribunal in revision‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a).
P L D 1970 Lah. 6 and P L D 1968 Lah. 1205 distinguished.
Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.
Date of hearing : 11th January, 1982.
The facts giving rise to this revision are that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act allowed Rest and Recreation Allowance on the petition of Nek Muhammad for him and for his 81 other co‑employees. The order was challenged in appeal before the Labour Court, but no certificate of deposit was filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal, as required by the proviso to section 17 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act. The Labour. Court, therefore, rejected the appeal on this short ground.
2. The argument of the learned counsel is that since sanction was to be obtained from the Finance Department the deposit of the amount granted by the authority was delayed and for this reason the certificate could not be filed. He has also said that since only one person applied for the Rest and Recreation Allowance for himself and for his otter com panions, who had not joined, the order of the authority was a nullity and thus the appellate Court should have decided the appeal on merits. He relies upon P L D 1970 Lah. 6 and P L D 1968 Lah. 1205. In both the authorities the point of limitation was involved. In the first mentioned authority it was observed that where an order is a nullity, the person affected by it, is required to challenge it only when it is enforced against him, and if by that time the period has expired, no question of limitation would arise. In the second mentioned authority the copy of the lower Court's judgment was not attached with the memorandum of appeal since it had not been supplied to the appellant in that case till then. The copy was supplied to him later on and it was filed. It is apparent that the question of limitation only was involved in the cases from which the two authorities arose, whereas in the present case, there was a mandatory provision in proviso to section 17 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act, accord ing to which, the very appeal is incompetent if the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by the certificate of the deposit of the amount granted by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The authorities cited by the learned counsel, therefore, are not helpful. There is equally no force in the argument of the learned counsel that since the sanction was to be obtained from the Finance Department, therefore, the deposit of the amount was delayed. The law is one and the same for all persons, irrespective of the fact whether any party is a Department of the Govern ment. It was known to the officers concerned that the delay is caused in obtaining sanction from the Finance Department and that the period of limitation being only thirty days, therefore, if they had been vigilent it was not impossible to get sanction and deposit the amount in time. If they left the matter to be finalised in routine, then they were slack in the performance of their duties and slackness cannot be a ground for indul gence. When law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, that thing should be done in that manner and in no other way. When section 27 (1) provides that a memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a certificate of the deposit of the amount, the appeal could be brought only after depositing the amount well before the expiry of the time meant for bringing the appeal. The Labour Court was justified in rejecting the appeal for the non‑compliance of the mandatory provision of section 17 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act. There is no force in the revision which is dismissed in limine.
A. E. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer