Find a Lawyer

Petition No.MN-284 of 1984, decided on 22nd December, 1985.

---S. 17--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38 (3-a)- Revision--Appeal against order of Authority before Labour Court--Appeal accepted without notice and opportunity of hearing to opposite party- Appellate Order, in circumstances, set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal remanding case for redecision after hearing parties.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Petitioner.

Faiz-ur-Rehman for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th December, 1985.

The order, dated 6-11-1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The learned lower Court has vide the impugned order held accepting the appeal of the respondent brought under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act that the Authority appointed under the said Act has no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner had in his petition given under section 15 claimed advance increments under the incentive scheme for having improved his qualification. An objection petition was lodged by the petitioner before the learned lower Appellate Court to the effect inter alia that not original but photo copy of the certificate of deposit of amount had been produced and that the appeal had been lodged without power-of-attorney by the counsel, so it was not maintainable. Previously, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The appeal was remanded by this Court holding that under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, the Labour Courts have jurisdiction. After remand no notice was issued to the petitioner. The notice and its duplicate copy both are lying in the file of appeal and no notice was sent to the respondent. He getting information himself appeared on 6-11-1984 and requested for adjournment to engage a counsel but on the same date the appeal was accepted holding that the Authority had no jurisdiction. Since the petitioner was not heard and the objections raised in his objection petition had not been heard and decided, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Since no notice was issued to the petitioner for 6-11-1984, his request for adjournment should have been allowed. If his request had been acceded to, his counsel may have brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer that the appeal was signed and presented without A authority and that original certificate of deposit of the amount had been attached to the memo, of appeal and the learned lower Court may have recorded its findings thereon. Since the appeal of the respondent was decided without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner l the impugned order is not sustainable.

3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the appeal is again remanded for redecision after hearing both the parties.

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.