Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision No. LHR‑329 of 1985. decided on 7th October, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38(3‑A)‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Void order‑‑S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 not made applicable to appeals under S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936‑‑Order of Labour Court refusing to condone delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 upheld by appellate Tribunal‑‑Labour Court while dismissing appeal observing that authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 had no jurisdiction to determine that petitioner was or was not a continuous worker‑‑Contention that having admitted that authority had no jurisdiction‑‑Labour Court could not have dismissed appeal as time‑barred because impugned order of Authority being beyond jurisdiction was void‑‑Contention repelled‑‑Held: period of limitation to challenge a void order does not start from date on which passed but starts from date it was enforced or sought to be enforced‑‑No date specified or mentioned from which impugned order of Authority was enforced or sought to be enforced rather grounds giver for 'condonation of delay‑‑Order of Labour Court refusing condonation, in circumstance, upheld, by appellate Tribunal in revision.
P L D 1958 S C 104 ref.
Hamid Mahmood Malik for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1985.
This is a revision under section 38(3‑a) giving information that the order, dated 12‑8‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9 Multan dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as time‑barred, is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
The appeal that has been dismissed by the learned lower Court as time‑barred arose from the order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sahiwal, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay to the respondent Rs.15,247.30 as overtime wages. The learned Authority held the respondent as continuous worker and thus found that he was entitled to overtime wages for working in excess of the working hours.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the learned lower Court has admitted that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority to determine if the respondent was or was not a continuous worker, so the question of limitation could not arise in the appeal and thus could not have been dismissed as time‑barred. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on P L D 1958 S C 104 but the same is not helpful. It has not been held therein that no question of limitation arises if the order challenged is beyond the jurisdiction and is thus void. The observations made are that only that order gains finality that has been passed within and not beyond the jurisdiction. But it is nowhere held that for challenging such an order, no question of limitation arises. The correct legal position is that a void order may be ignored and it is not necessary to challenge it, but it becomes necessary to attack it when it is enforced at the period of limitation to challenge it does not start from the date on which it was passed but from the date it was enforced or sought to be enforced. It has not been shown that the order of the authority was enforced by the respondent on such a date that from it the appeal was within time. Rather grounds were given for the condonation of delay. Section 5 of Limitation Act applies if the relevant special law has expressly made i applicable. There is nothing in the Payment of Wages Act to show that section 5 of the Limitation Act was made applicable to the appeals to b, brought under section 17 of the said Act. So the learned lower Court rightly refused to apply section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. As a result the revision fails and 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