YAR MUHAMMAD Versus MESSRS DELTA ARK SERVICE (PRIVATE) LTD.

ORDER

Mr. Mehboob Rizvi has raised the question of jurisdiction that claim of the wages and of the deduction as one of the relief s falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. He has gone even further to contend that limitation also be considered referring to the starting point of the notice of grievance dated 4‑3‑1987 in view of the applicant's admission.

2. These questions of law, were not raised in the Written Statement of the respondent but allegations of general nature of the non- maintainability and of the non‑compliance of the procedural provisions.

3. The relief asked for is of four kinds, the withholding of wages, issuing of appointment letters, paying double overtime, leave etc, based on the status of the permanent workmanship but subsequently his wages reduced from 1,000 to 800 and withheld.

4. In the first place the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A IRO appears to be wide enough as the forum to redress the individual wrong if he has the right secured or guaranteed under award, settlement or law. The statute of Payment of Wages Act is in special legislation to deal with the cases in respect of the Payment wages which are delayed or deducted illegally.

5. The remedy under section 25‑A, in the Labour Court's view is of the widest significance where the declaration is sought whether the particular right by particular workman affecting his terms and conditions of the employment can be redressed. In other words the only right of which the remedy is sought which is recognized by law, settlement or awards, in the context of section 25‑A which is the forum of remedy.

6. In this particular case petitioner has four grievances that he being a workman is not given the appointment order, secondly his salary unilaterally reduced has no legal justification as consequence of withholding payment and other incidental benefits.

7. To be precise, therefore, the applicant has come for declaration of which the Court has the jurisdiction to grant the relief or refuse the relief as the case may be, for, it has number of legal issues to resolve, on the respondent's own case that his legal status as a workman is under dispute when he is a security man. The scope, therefore, of the Authority, in view of this Court is limited to determine the status or if the respondent raises the similar question of law the necessary effect will be the legal complication and the long process of litigation.

8. In the result, therefore, the payment of the wages depends on the determination of the status by granting declaration of which if the status is determined the applicants have two remedies either to apply for the recovery of the wages under the Payment of Wages Act if it conforms to the requirements of law under those provisions, secondly under section 51 of the IRO for the recovery of the amount as if it is in the nature of execution recovery.

9. Consequently all these questions having inter‑relations or indivisible rightly taking cognizance by the Labour Court.

10. Regarding question of limitation, this issue of law is open for adjudication which is the mixed question of fact having co‑related to the operation of limitation. Presently, at this time of the objection, the application appears to be in time. But this tentative observation is only for the disposal of this preliminary objection, but this issue of limitation is to be examined in both the legal and factual perspective after the factual niceties have come in the evidence. Those observations of the timely filing of petition or application shall have the final confirmation of the time of final decision on the merits as a whole.

11. Mr. Mehboob Rizvi has referred highest authoritative decisions, in the context of the facts which are different from this aspect but Courts respectfully follow the principle of the law for the application in the issue under adjudication. P L D 1969 SC 167, P L D 1973 Quetta 35. In this authority of 1969 the principle was that if the appeal was disposed of on merits thereby it cannot be presumed that Appellate Court had condoned the delay.

12. Taking cognizance of the contention of Mr. Mehboob Rizvi both these points have been considered and accordingly the Court is of the view that these issues raised require final determination but presently premature. The order accordingly. The case is to proceed further.

A.E./987/Lb.S

Orders accordingly.