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.
Writ Petition No. 365 of 1982, decided on 21st December, 1982.
--- Art. 9---Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 15 & 16 Writ-Laches-Discretionary relief-Cannot be claimed as a matter of right-Conduct of parties very much relevant - Government or Pakistan Railways cannot be treated in a manner different from any ordinary litigant - Order passed by Authority and Labour Court under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 challenged in writ petition-Petition delayed for about 25 months - No explanation for laches given in petition-Plea in arguments that petitioner being Pakistan Railways time was taken in some formalities and further that impugned order being void could be struck down at any time-- Plea rejected-Having filed appeal before Labour Court against order of Authority, petitioner, held, could not say that Labour Court had no jurisdiction and order of Labour Court was void enough to rule out objection of laches-Petition, in circumstances, dismissed on account of laches.
Malik Hamid Mahmood for Petitioner.
Mian M. Zafar Yasin for Respondents Nos. 3 to 12.
Date of hearing : 21st December, 1982.
This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby, the Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railway, Multan petitioner. wants this Curt to declare the orders. dated 17th September, 1979 and 29th June, 1980 of Authority under Payment of Wages Act and Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan respectively, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that on 11th April, 1978 the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 who are the workers Class IV, Pakistan Railways, applied under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before Authority, respondent No. 2 claiming Rs. 55,836 against Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan as illegal deduction from their wages from 1st April, 1975 to 31st.March, 1978 on the ground that they having performed 12 hours duty a day, were entitled to daily 4 hours overtime. The application was contested, the respondent No. - 2 framed the following issues :-
(1) Whether the claim of the wages has been illegally deducted. If so, to what extent
(2) Relief.
On 17th September; 1979 respondent No. 2 found issue No. 1 in favour of the workers/respondents and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 55,836 within 30 days. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, respondent No. 1 which was dismissed on 29th June, 1980. Hence this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents. Nos. 3 to 12 has raised the plea of laches as a preliminary objection. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition in view of the laches I need not to discuss the merits in detail. After going through the record I find that the appeal against order of the Authority, respondent No. 2 was rejected on 29th June, 1980 by the Punjab Labour Court No. 9 whereas the present writ petition was filed on 1st April, 1982 i.e. after about one year and 9 months. To my mind the delay of one year and 9 months is palpable enough to attract the attention. It was, therefore, the duty of the petitioner to explain with or without affidavit this inordinate delay in the petition itself but no explanation whatsoever has been given in the petition. The learned counsel of the Railway has, at the time of arguments attempted to explain the delay by submitting that the petitioner being Pakistan Railway, time was taken in some formalities. Furthermore, the impugned order being void, it can be struck down at any time. I have not been able to pursue myself to agree with the explanation given by the learned counsel at the time of arguments because the same having not been given in the petition appears to be afterthought. Moreover, it is now, well-settled that Government or Railway cannot claim to be treated in a manner differently from an ordinary litigant. The delay in filing the writ petition being very much obvious, the petitioner was duty bound to explain the same. 'As far the second contention that the impugned order being void, same can be struck down at any time, I am of the opinion that the same in the circumstances of the case is without substance. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had jurisdiction to accept or reject the claim. Having filed appeal before respondent No. 1, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to uphold the findings of respondent No. 2 or that his order was void enough to rule out the objection of ]aches. The relief under Article 9 of P. C. O. being discretionary, the conduct of the parties is very much relevant. No one can claim this relief as a matter of right. Since this petitioner suffers from ]aches for which no explanation whatsoever, has been given in the petition, the same is, hereby, dismissed on this scare. With no orders as to the costs.
A. E.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer