Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑166 of 1983, decided on 19th March, 1984.

‑‑‑ S. 17‑Appeal against order of Authority‑Limitation‑Question arises even if impugned order was without jurisdiction‑Labour Court entertaining belated appeal on ground that Authority's order was without jurisdiction‑Order of Labour Court accepting appeal, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision‑Held Since appeal was time‑barred Labour Court could not without con doning delay set aside order of Authority‑Revision‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑a)‑[N L R 1983 Lab. 218 held not applicable].

N L R 1983 Lab. 218 held not applicable.

P L D 1975 Lah. 825 rel.

Syed Muhammad Naqi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 12th March, 1983.

This is a revision directed against the order, dated 13th April, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dismissing the petition of the petitioners for advance increments under the incentive scheme on account of improving their qualification by passing B. A. examination. They had applied for the advance increments on 5th January, 1980. Thereafter, they made applica tions to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which were accepted. The respondent went in appeal which was accepted and the petition dismissed for the reason that the Authority had no jurisdiction.

2. It has been argued by the learned representative of the petitioners that the appeal was time‑barred, so it should have been dismissed. Learned lower Court has admitted that the appeal was time‑barred and the delay could not be condoned but held that since the Authority under the Pay ment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction, no question of limitation could arise. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited N L R 1983 Labour 218 in support of the view taken by the learned lower Court but the same is not relevant to the case. No such point is involved in the ruling. The repre sentative of the petitioners has cited P L D 1975 Lah. 825. It has been observed that even to challenge a void order, action shall be taken within limitation. Since the very appeal was time‑barred, the learned lower , appellate Court could not without condoning the delay set aside the" decision of the Authority even though it was without jurisdiction. The appeal was time‑barred by one day even from the date of the delivery of the copy of the order of the Authority and no reason was given for the delay, The copy was prepared on 30th June, '1981 but its delivery was taken on 11th July, 1981. Application was presented on 11th August, 1981. Reasons for not collecting the copy of the Authority's order on 30th June, 1981 have been given but no reason was given for not bringing the appeal on 10th August, 1981.

3. As a result, I accept the revision and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower appellate Court, dismiss the appeal as time barred and revive the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wag Act.

A.E. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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