Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD TUFAIL VS Respondent: PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE
1993 P L C 1004
1993 P L C 1004
[Lahore High Court]
Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL
Versus
PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 2200 of 1990, heard on 16th November, 1992.
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Acceptance of review application of employee on the ground of pathetic condition of employee and not on the grounds mentioned in his application for review ‑‑‑Validity‑‑-Employee in earlier round of litigation had made a statement in Court that he had entered into a compromise with employer with the result that nothing was left outstanding against employer‑‑‑Employee subsequently seeking review of order passed in earlier round of litigation stating that he had not made any statement before Court admitting any compromise or receipt of dues‑‑‑Court found no substance in review application holding that no ground for review had been made out by employee‑‑‑Court, however, accepted employee's review application on the ground of pathetic condition of employee‑‑‑No order could be reviewed or recalled on such ground‑‑‑Order of review was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th November, 1992.
JUDGMENT
Respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, against the petitioner, complaining that he has not been paid his dues amounting to Rs.11,256. This application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply. During the course of proceedings, a statement was made by respondent No. 3 on 27‑8‑1989 that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner and received his dues, with the result that nothing was left outstanding against the petitioner. He prayed that his case be consigned to record. On the basis of his statement, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act consigned the application filed by respondent No. 3 to record.
2. After about two months of the order, on 7‑10‑1989, an application, seeking review/revision of the order dated 27‑8‑1989 was moved by respondent No. 3 stating that he had not made any statement before the Court, admitting any compromise or receipt of the dues and, therefore, the case, which had been consigned under some mistake, be restored.
3. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act found no substance in this application and held that respondent No. 3 had levelled false allegations against the Court and, therefore, there was no ground for review/revision of the order passed by him. Surprisingly, however, it proceeded to accept the revision petition on the ground of pathetic condition of respondent No. 3. This order of the authority, under the Payment of Wages Act was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision, which was dismissed as being not maintainable by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore dated 26‑3‑1990. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. No one appears for the respondents despite calls made; they are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.
6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that having itself held that there was no ground for review/revision of its earlier order dated 27‑8‑1989, there was no justification for respondent No. 1 to have set aside that order and revised the proceedings.
7. There is a considerable force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. On the present record, it is evident that respondent No. 3 had made a statement, admitting that he had received all his dues from the petitioner and nothing was left outstanding against him and had prayed on 27‑8‑1989 that the proceedings be consigned to record. It was on the basis of that statement of respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 1 had filed the proceedings. In the application for review/revision, respondent No. 3 had stated that he did not make any such statement. This allegation was found to be false by respondent No. 1 itself. That being so, it was not clearly open to respondent No. 1 to review/recall its earlier order merely on account of pitiable condition of respondent No. 3. One may have sympathised with the said respondent but this was certainly no ground on the basis of earlier order, which could be revived or recalled.
For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the order dated 8‑2‑1990 of respondent No. 2 is declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.A. /M‑1138/L ???????? Petition accepted.