SABIR Versus MESSRS GHULAM HUSSAIN & SONS
ORDER
Claim of 2,20,500 was preferred against M/s. Ghulam Hussain & Sons, resident of the Defence Society, before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, by one Sabir Khan who appeared to be Attorney on behalf of 15 Workers, shown in the annexed schedule that they were not paid the wages from 1‑10‑1983 to 29‑4‑1984. This was in respect of the claim, of unpaid wages, CLA, gratuity and the encashment of leave. They also claim to be employees of the respondent who was the contractor of KDA and ADA.
2. The learned Authority in, very brief order, has touched this legal aspect, that application was not signed by the Applicant. There is no signature of the executants on the Power of Attorney. Only Affidavit of three persons was filed. Thereafter he proceeded to discuss the contention of the respondent that in the absence of the particulars where Applicants worked or the respondent reside, the territorial jurisdiction of the Court cannot be ascertained Accordingly he dismissed the application.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Jamal Usmani has very actively contested this matter that the order passed by the learned Authority was passed on 18‑2‑1987 and not on 9‑2‑1987. He has taken exception by giving the statement of the reason that the order passed on 18‑2‑1987, was pasted ante showing to have been passed on 18‑2‑1987. The exact wordings of the counsel are reflected on page 2 of his note of argument which reads as follows:‑
"In token the proof of this contention a photo copy of the application moved on behalf of the respondent has been filed along with this appeal which prima facie shows that according to the knowledge of the respondent as well as the impugned order, the order was passed on 18‑2‑1987 and not on 9‑2‑1987."
4. The learned counsel further has contended that impugned order is nullity in the eyes of law, and not consistent with the pleadings of the parties. He has further made the comment on the propriety of the finding that in the absence of the objection raised by the respondent regarding Power of Attorney, his view taken on that aspect was unwarranted. Mr. Jamal Usmani has further emphasized that in the absence of the evidence on the record, the presumption drawn of the lack of territorial jurisdiction was also unwarranted.
5. The respondent has supported the order of the learned Authority and also referred the decision given in the constitution petition No.89 of 1984. In this decision, in view of the observation of his lordship, regarding the competency of the person to file application, should have been ascertained. In that context, Mr. Jamal Usmani representative of the Appellant has not supported the order of the learned Authority.
6. Applicant's counsel has drawn the Court's attention to Annexure‑C which has been produced by the Applicant's counsel, which is the copy of the application made to the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation dated 2‑3‑1987 with the title written as "copy of the verdict case No.64 of 1985 dated 18‑2‑87.
7. The Court has also referred to the certified copy and the original copy of the order of the learned Authority where under his signature, there is date mentioned as 9‑2‑1937. The diary of the signature, Court also shows the same date 9‑2‑1987. It appears that it is written c by the learned Authority himself.
8. The Appellate Court has examined this letter Annexure‑C. It rather presents number of answers. If this application is filed before the honourable Court of learned Authority, what action of contempt was taken of the mis‑statement of the date of the announcement of the order which was very serious matter of the reaction on public or on the litigants, or was it the typographical error of the respondent, when the order was passed and it was their success. Why there should be mis‑statement of the date of the announcement of the order of the learned Authority whose signature and the date coincide with the date of 9‑2‑1987. Thirdly it is not the case that the clerical staff or whoever may have mis-conducted calling for the contempt. It is not the case that clerk misguided. It is the mis‑statement coming from the respondent itself. These are the questions of facts for the learned Authority to decide as the contempt has been committed of his own order.
9. In that situation, where the Court's decision has been taken lightly, the learned Authority after recording the evidence can proceed to take action, if it finds that there has been no respect of the law.
10. Regarding the main issue of the non‑maintainability by observing that no details of the place where the workers were said to have been employed or the Power of Attorney is silent due to the absence of the signature of the Executant, in the favour of attorney, the Court has examined the Power of Attorney and the signatures of 65 workers including Mr. Raufan. The learned Court perhaps through oversight has failed to take notice that the Power of Attorney which is produced in this Court and also before the learned Court has the statement of the names of 66 workers who have appointed Mr. Sabir as Attorney. It appears that only the Power of Attorney has been read on its first page, and, therefore, the difficulty was being placed. It is not the case that the statement has been obtained subsequently when the attestation of the notary public is on the Power of Attorney to be read as a whole.
11. The next question has followed that evidence was recorded and no such objection was raised at the initial stage. The learned Authority has faced the difficulty regarding the jurisdiction that in the absence of the particular of the employment as to where the cause of action arose, at this stage the Court is not giving its opinion but will desire that the evidence be minutely examined and discussed and then referred the notification of the territorial jurisdiction. Indeed the application was filed by a worker who has no knowledge of the law and also is not an educated man in the sense of proper draftsman. The Court may also agree that there is no equation when the ignorance of law is no defence. If the evidence has proceeded and by consent the evidence has been followed for all the workmen whom the applicant was representing, the learned Court has further to examine whether the Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal came in the territorial jurisdiction or the Airport where there was no jurisdiction. These are the questions of law with the learned Authority after referring the notification, the evidence and after hearing both the counsels decide the issue regarding the applicability of the Payment of Wages Act in the legal concept. This is also matter of legal interest that there is a heavy claim of the workers who have worked, according to them and legitimately from the sweat of their brow and, therefore, the claim cannot be lightly dismissed unless there is no jurisdiction. If the Court is also setting aside the order, without making any comment as to the responsibility of mis‑statement of the date of the announcement of order whether it was on 9‑2‑1987 or 18‑2‑1987, the facts will come into light when evidence is recorded to show whether it was a clerical staff who misguided the respondent as to the date of the announcement or it was some other reason. The Appellate Court, therefore, in such uncertainty sends the case back to discuss the legal aspects and give the finding on both questions of law and the fact to serve the requirement of justice. In the view of the Appellate Court this mis‑statement of the date of the order is a very serious matter creating reaction on the public mind, and for that, if there is law of contempt, the learned Authority, if finds can take action which will also be in the administration of justice to give confidence to the public mind to highlight, the majesty of the law.
A.E. 991/Lb. S
Case remanded.