MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE

Respondent No. 3 filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, against the petitioner, complaining that he has not been paid his dues amounting to Rs.11,256. This application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply. During the course of proceedings, a statement was made by respondent No. 3 on 27‑8‑1989 that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner and received his dues, with the result that nothing was left outstanding against the petitioner. He prayed that his case be consigned to record. On the basis of his statement, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act consigned the application filed by respondent No. 3 to record.

2. After about two months of the order, on 7‑10‑1989, an application, seeking review/revision of the order dated 27‑8‑1989 was moved by respondent No. 3 stating that he had not made any statement before the Court, admitting any compromise or receipt of the dues and, therefore, the case, which had been consigned under some mistake, be restored.

3. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act found no substance in this application and held that respondent No. 3 had levelled false allegations against the Court and, therefore, there was no ground for review/revision of the order passed by him. Surprisingly, however, it proceeded to accept the revision petition on the ground of pathetic condition of respondent No. 3. This order of the authority, under the Payment of Wages Act was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision, which was dismissed as being not maintainable by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore dated 26‑3‑1990. Hence this petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. No one appears for the respondents despite calls made; they are accordingly proceeded against ex parte.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that having itself held that there was no ground for review/revision of its earlier order dated 27‑8‑1989, there was no justification for respondent No. 1 to have set aside that order and revised the proceedings.

7. There is a considerable force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. On the present record, it is evident that respondent No. 3 had made a statement, admitting that he had received all his dues from the petitioner and nothing was left outstanding against him and had prayed on 27‑8‑1989 that the proceedings be consigned to record. It was on the basis of that statement of respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 1 had filed the proceedings. In the application for review/revision, respondent No. 3 had stated that he did not make any such statement. This allegation was found to be false by respondent No. 1 itself. That being so, it was not clearly open to respondent No. 1 to review/recall its earlier order merely on account of pitiable condition of respondent No. 3. One may have sympathised with the said respondent but this was certainly no ground on the basis of earlier order, which could be revived or recalled.

For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the order dated 8‑2‑1990 of respondent No. 2 is declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.

A.A. /M‑1138/L ????????

Petition accepted.