TAJA MASIH Versus CHAIRMAN TOWN COMMITTEE RABWAH

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the four revisions captioned above, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The facts of the case are that four applications were brought separately by the petitioners under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act in the Court of the learned Authority. Notices were issued to the respondent for 12‑11‑1986. The learned Authority proceeded ex parte against the respondent and delivered ex parte decision holding that notices had been served. The respondent went in appeal to learned Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad. The appeals were accepted and the cases were remanded for re‑decision after allowing both the parties to produce evidence. The said order has been challenged in the present revisions.

3. It is argued that notices were served upon the respondent, therefore, the learned Authority had rightly proceeded ex parte and that the‑‑ learned lower appellate Court wrongly set aside the order and remanded the cases. The notices for 12‑11‑1986 were despatched by the post office vide postal receipts on 13‑11‑1986. A.D. receipts which are on the file show that the registered letters were received on 4‑11‑1986, the notices could not be received by the respondent IA on 4‑11‑1986. The A.D. receipts appear to pertain to some other registered letters and not the ones despatched on 13‑11‑1986, in compliance with the order dated 30‑11‑1986. It is thus, clear that service of notices upon the respondent for 12‑11‑1986 was not established and the learned lower appellate Court rightly set aside the ex parte decision.

4. As a result, the revisions fail and are dismissed.

M.Y.H./331/Lb.P

Petitions dismissed.