Find a Lawyer

Petition No. MN‑199 of 1984, decided on 13th August, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 38(3)‑‑Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 17‑‑Revision‑‑Order of Labour Court as appellate Court under S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑An order of Labour Court under S. 35(5) (d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑Subject to revisional powers of Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Petitioner.

Mian lqbal Khalid for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 6th August, 1984.

The revision captioned above gives information that the order, dated 17‑7‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8 Bahawalpur, is wrong and void.

2. The petitioner upon improving his qualification claimed 4 advance increments under incentive scheme and brought petition before the learned authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It was accepted. On appeal by the respondent under section 17 of the Payment of the Wages Act, the learned lower appellate Court held, relying upon an unreported judgment of Lahore High Court, that neither the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim nor the Labour Court was competent to hear appeal. The learned lower appellate Court directed the return of the appeal as well as petition brought under section 15, directing the return of the amount deposited by the respondent. Since the learned lower appellate Court has preferred to rely upon the judgment of the High Court, in revision I have limited jurisdiction to set aside the orders in toto. However, the order is not sustainable for the reason that on one hand it has been held that that appeal is not competent and on the other has directed the return of the petition of the petitioner given to the authority under section 15, of the Payment of Wages Act. Only that Court can set aside or nullify the order of a lower Court which is competent to hear appeal. Since the order was passed under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act with or without jurisdiction, the appeal did lie under section 17 of the same Act and finding of learned lower appellate Court is wrong that it has no jurisdiction. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that no revision lies from the order passed under section 15 or 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. I agree to this extent that no order passed under section 15 can be directly challenged .in revision but an order passed, under section 17 of the same Act by the Labour Court can be revised. The Labour Court exercise powers not only under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act but also under section 35(5) (d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They have also been authorised to exercise powers, conferred upon them by any other law. Since the Labour Courts hear appeals under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act read with section 35(5) (d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the orders are subject to revisional powers of this tribunal.

3. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned orders of the learned lower appellate Court, the appeal is remanded for re‑decision according to law.

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.