Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: QURBAN MASIH VS Respondent: THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE GUJRAT
1993 P L C 190
1993 P L C 190
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sh. Abdul Waheed Appellate Tribunal
QURBAN MASIH and 185 others
versus
THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GUJRAT through Chairman
Revision No. GA‑557/Pb. of 1992, decided on 18th October, 1992.
Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 15(2) & 17‑‑‑Claim for wages for the work done on holidays‑‑‑Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 dismissed petitioners' claim on the ground that petition for the same was hopelessly time‑barred and that no application for condonation of delay had been filed‑‑‑Appeal against the same was dismissed by Labour Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petition for claiming wages filed before Authority being barred by time and no application for condonation of delay having been moved, order of Labour Court regarding in competency of appeal was unexceptionable which called for non‑interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Divisional Superintendent, P.W.R., Multan v. Abdul Khaliq 1984 SCMR 1311 rel.
N. Naz, Representative for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 18th October, 1992.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this revision petition to assail the validity of an order passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala on 22‑4‑1992 whereby their appeal from an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujrat on 28‑2‑1991 dismissing their petition for wages as being barred by time, was dismissed.
2. The petitioners are Sanitary Workers in the Municipal Committee, Gujrat. On 16‑11‑1989 they filed a petition before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujrat under section 15(2) of tile Payment of Wages Act, 19.101, each claiming wages for the work done on eighty gazetted holidays at the rate of Rs.50 per day during the period 1981‑85. This petition was opposed by the respondent inter alia on the ground that the same was barred by time, having been presented after the expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the payment of the wages was allegedly due to be made.
3. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act observing that the petition was hopelessly barred by time and no application had been filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay, dismissed the same.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, which dismissed the same vide its order dated 22‑4‑1992 on the ground that no appeal was competent from an order dismissing a petition filed under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, on the ground of its being barred by time. Hence this revision petition.
5. I have heard the representative of the petitioners. It is not controverted that the petition filed by the petitioners before the Authority was barred by time and no application was moved by them for condonation of delay. The view taken by the learned Labour Court regarding the in competency of an appeal from an order dismissing a petition under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, on the ground of, its being barred by time, finds support from Divisional Superintendent. P.W.R. Multan v. Abdul Khaliq (1984 SCMR 1311) in which it has been observed as follows:‑
"Section 17 provides for an appeal against the direction made under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 15. Here what is omitted is an appeal against an order refusing to entertain an application on the ground that it is barred by time or for sufficient clause the delay is condoned. The intention of the Legislature seems to be in that case where the application is beyond time and the authority fails to condone the delay under the second proviso to subsection (2), no appeal shall lie against that order under section 17:"
6. In view of the above authority of the Supreme Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is unexceptionable and does not call for interference. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed in, limine.
A.A./744/Lb.P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.