SHAIKH SILK MILLS, KARACHI Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. 3, KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances in which this information has been laid under section 38(3‑A) of the IRO are as follows:‑‑

The respondent No. 3 submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, preferring a claim of Rs.32,535.

2. The respondent was served but did not choose to enter appearance and an ex parte order followed on the 5th of April, 1990.

3. It is alleged that the informant remained unaware of the proceedings and the ex parte order, before the Payment of Wages Authority,, and learnt about the same from the notice dated 3‑7‑1991 from the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Karachi for the recovery of the said amount under section 81 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.

4. The informant then preferred an appeal before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte order which came to be dismissed on the ground that the appeal for setting aside the‑ ex parte decree did not lie at all under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act.

5. Mr. Masood Mirza learned counsel for the informant contended that the finding of the Labour Court in appeal was unwarranted as no direction under section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was sent to the informant prior to the referring ‑of the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Karachi and therefore the appeal as preferred, would be competent though for setting aside the ex parte order. Reference was made to sections 3, 4, 5 and 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and Rule 11 thereof.

6. However Mr. Masood Mirza very candidly admitted that he could find no support from any authority or from any text of any commentary on the Payment of Wages Act in support of his contention.

7. I am clearly of the opinion that in the circumstances, no occasion has arisen for me to interfere in the matter more so because there is a clear finding by the Payment of Wages Authority that the informant had been duly served and the report of the bailiff was that the son of the informant had after a long discussion refused to accept the service. It is also mentioned that the cheque produced before the Authority later on, had bounced and it was, after some delay that the deposits were made as prescribed under the law.

The information therefore is dismissed.

H.B.T./2131/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Information/Revision dismissed.