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.
Constitutional Petition No. S‑17 of 1982, decided on 18th November, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 17‑‑Claim of unpaid wages‑‑Settlement by cheque There being no express provision in Act requiring cash payment, amount paid through Cheque, held, was valid‑‑Order of Labour Court below sustaining objection with regard to tender of amount by cheque, was erroneous‑‑Case remanded to Labour Court for decision on merits subject to all just exceptions.
1979 P L C 1 ref.
Sarfraz Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Rauf P L D 1969 Kar. 176 rel.
---S 15‑‑Claim‑‑Payment of‑‑Payment of claim through cheque, held, had become acceptable tender in view of exigencies of modern life.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ahmed for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th November, 1986.
This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Sixth Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad dated 16‑9‑1981, dismissing the petitioner's appeal filed against the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the first respondent was employed by the Pakistan Railways as U. D. C., Locoshed, at Kotri. He filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, clamining unpaid wages from the petitioner which was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,534 to the respondent against his claim. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal before the learned Sixth Labour Court, Hyderabad against the order passed by the aforesaid Authority. Before the learned Labour Court an objection was taken by the first respondent that the petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements of the proviso to section 17 (1) (a) of the Payment of Wages Act as the amount ordered by the Authority to be paid to the respondent had been deposited with the former by the petitioner through cheque instead of cash.
The proviso is as under:‑
Provided that no appeal under this clause shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with the authority the amount payable under the direction appealed against.
The learned Labour Court, while placing reliance on a decision given by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, reported in 1979 P L C 1, upheld the objection and dismissed the appeal, and hence, this petition.
3. The main contention of Mr. Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned Labour Court had fallen into error while dismissing the appeal, as there was no express provision in the aforesaid proviso requiring the petitioner to deposit cash. Reliance' has been placed by the learned counsel on Sarfraz Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Rauf P L D 1969 Kar. 176 wherein Noorul Arfin, J. (as he then was) has held as under: ‑
The question is, whether there is no scope to evolve any further exception to the rule now when it has become an established and universally recognised practice to discharge liabilities by tender of cheques. In my opinion, in the context of the modern conditions, it will be reasonable to hold that tender of cheque is a valid tender, unless the creditor expressly objects to such tender, or unless there is an express provision in the arrangement between the creditor and the debtor that the latter should discharge his liability only by tender of money in current coins or currency notes issued under the authority of some statute.
4. There appears to be lot of force in the contention raised by Chaudhry Rasheed Ahmed. The proviso to which I have already referred, nowhere suggests that the amount to be deposited by the appellant must be in cash, as all that the aforesaid proviso requires, is a certificate from the Authority to the effect that the amount payable under the latter's directions has been deposited with him. No doubt, in the present case, the respondent appears to have raised an objection that the amount should have been deposited in cash but in my opinion, the objection would have been well founded only if the relevant proviso had expressly provided for deposit of cash by the party concerned. Admittedly, it was not the case of the respondent that the amount deposited by the petitioner by cheque had not been credited with learned Authority. The learned Labour Court, although, placed reliance on the case decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, but with utmost respect to the views expressed by the learned Tribunal in that case, the Tribunal's view is not tenable. The learned Tribunal has based its view on the general principle that when a particular act is directed by the Legislature to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner and no other manner but the same rule cannot be pressed into service in the instant case. In any case, as has been held in PLD 1969 Kar. 176, to which I have just referred, tender by the cheque had become an acceptable tender, keeping in view the exigencies of modern life.
I, am, therefore, of the view that the learned Labour Court has fallen into error by upholding the objection of the respondent in this regard.
5. 1, therefore, remand this case to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits which would, of course, be subject to all just expectations.
M.Y.H/P‑2/K Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer