Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ISHAQ And Others
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ And Others Case No.: Revision Petitions Nos. FD-221 and 222 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1985-10-22 Reported As: 1986 PLC 509 Result: Revision dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT The two revisions captioned above give information that the orders, dated 27-5-1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the appeals of the petitioner were held to be not maintainable, are wrong and of no legal effect. As common points of law are involved in the two revisions, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. 2. The Authority under the payment of Wages Act had accepted the petitions of the respondents for recovery of deducted/delayed wages ex parte. The petitioner brought applications for setting aside the ex parte decision, but they were disallowed. The said orders were challenged in appeals under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act before the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad. It has been rightly held by the learned lower appellate Court that there is no provision ink section 17 for challenging an order dismissing the application for setting, aside ex parte decisions. Appeal lies under section 17 only against a direction made under subsection (3) or (4) to deposit an amount. By the order of the Authority challenged before the learned lower appellate Court no direction to deposit any amount was made but the Authority refused to vacate the direction of deposit of amount ordered under section 15(3). If on insufficient grounds the direction had been made by the learned Authority, the original ex parte order could have been Challenged under section 17, but it was not done. The learned lower appellate Court rightly refused to treat the appeal as an appeal against the original ex parte direction, because no certificate of the deposit of the amounts were produced with the appeals. The provision is mandatory and an appeal lodged without such a certificate is not competent. 3. As a result, the revisions fail and are thus dismissed.