Messrs UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sub: Major
The petitioner, Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed its constitutional petition. The respondent, a retired Subedar Major, had successfully claimed unpaid wages before the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The Authority awarded the respondent the claimed wages plus a penalty. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition, reasoning that the petitioner failed to raise the jurisdictional objection before the Authority and failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the jurisdictional objection was indeed raised before the Authority at the time of framing issues, and that constitutional jurisdiction is appropriate when a question of jurisdiction is involved, bypassing the cumbersome appellate process. The Supreme Court found that the record supported the petitioner's claim that the jurisdictional objection was raised and decided by the Authority. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and suspended the Authority's order pending final disposal.
- Can a party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an order on the basis of jurisdiction without first exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal?
- Does the failure to raise a jurisdictional objection in a written statement preclude a party from raising it during the framing of issues before the Authority?
- Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act 1936
ORDER
RUSTAM S.SIDHWA J.---Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 19-11-1989, dismissing its Constitutional Petition.
2. Subedar Major (Retired) Ghulam Sarwar, respondent, filed a claim under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 before the Authority appointed under the said Act for a sum of Rs.17,584 as wages due and payable by the petitioner-company. The Authority by order dated 23- 5-1989 ordered the petitioner-company to pay Rs.70,336 (Rs.17,584 as the wages due, along with Rs.52,752 being three times penalty). The petitioner-company assailed the said order in Constitutional jurisdiction before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, on the ground that the Authority had no jurisdiction to deal with the respondent's case. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that as the petitioner-company had not taken the said objection before the Authority itself, whose order it was challenging, it could not go into that question. The High Court also held that as the petitioner-company had not preferred an appeal against the impugned order, before the forum provided by the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the petition was not maintainable. The petitioner-company now seeks leave to appeal against the said judgment.
3. On behalf of the petitioner-company it is submitted that in its Written statement to the respondent's petition filed before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act it had taken up the objection as regards the territorial jurisdiction of the Authority to deal with the case, which was decided against the petitioner-company,. But later it had taken the objection as regards the competency of the Authority to deal with the case at the time of framing of the issues and issue No.1 was framed in this respect and ultimately decided against the petitioner-company, as is apparent from the order of the Authority dated 23-5-1989. It is admitted that though the petitioner- company did not take up the objection as regards the competency of the Authority to deal with the respondent---s application in its written statement, it took up the objection regarding jurisdiction at the time of framing of the issues and an issue having been thus framed and decided by the Authority, it could not be stated that the petitioner-company had not taken up the objection of jurisdiction before the forum concerned, as held by the High Court. It is further submitted that where a question of jurisdiction is involved, a party can straightaway move the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction, without resorting to the remedy of appeal, as the latter procedure is cumberous and time consuming.
4. The order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 23-5-1989, which appears at pages 22 to 24 of the paper-book, does show that the petitioner-company took up the objection as regards the competency of the Authority to deal with the case of the respondent. In these circumstances, the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-company require examination. Leave is therefore granted. The petitioner-company shall furnish security in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal shall be heard on the basis of the present record. The parties are at liberty to file such further documents as they consider necessary and proper for the full and final disposal of the appeal. The order of the Authority is suspended pending the disposal of the appeal.