' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15-5-2004 passed by respondent No,2 Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Sahiwal, whereby the Authority dismissed the appellant filed by the petitioner under section 151 C.P.C. For summary rejection of application moved by respondent No,1 under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that respondent No,1 filed an application bearing No,P.W.-15-2002, wherein lie claimed compensation to the tune of Rs,f13600 before respondent No,2.
It was asserted in the said application by respondent No,1 that he was employed as Production Manager and his monthly salary was settled as Rs,17600. It was further averred in the application that on 8-11-2001, respondentNo,1 resigned from the said post and claimed Rs,88000 as gratuity for 5 years, Rs,17600-as bonus and salary Rs,8000 for encashment of 15 days, which comes to total Rs,113600 which was withheld by the petitioner. During the pendency of the said application before respondent No,2 on 11-12-2002 respondent No,1 appeared in the witness-box and against stated that he was employed as Production Manager against a salary of Rs,17600 per month and resigned on 8-11-2001. He claimed Rs,88000 as gratuity for 5 years and Rs,17600 as bonus and salary Rs,8000 for encashment of 15 days which comes to total Rs,113600. On 11-12-2003, the petitioner filed an application under section 151 C.P.C. Before respondent No,2 for summary rejection of application moved under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The application was contested by respondent No,1 by filing written reply and respondent No,2 dismissed the same vide order dated 15-5-2004. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order dated 15-5-2004 passed by respondent No,2 is against the law and that respondent No,1 does not come within the definition of 'workman' and under the law respondent No,2 has jurisdiction on those matters, which come into the definition of 'workman', so the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has at the very outset raised preliminary objection by arguing that an appeal has been provided against the order of the Authority under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the same lies before the Labour Court established under the Industrial Relations Ordinance; that despite numerous opportunities, the petitioner has not tendered evidence before the Authority and that after the close of the evidence of the respondent, the petitioner had sought time for making compromise and thereafter has started dilatory tactics.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Since this writ petition is directed against interlocutory order, I have asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to how writ jurisdiction can be extended to such an order, particularly when it can be challenged in appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to say anything or cite any authority on this point. Interlocutory orders cannot bechallenged in writ petitions. Exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution against interlocutory order would amount to defeating the purpose of law. Reliance is placed upon Mian Ghulam Dastgir Bari v. Roy Sala ud Din and others PLD 1987 Lah. 39).
7. Sections 15 and 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1934 are reproduced below:-- Section 15. Claims out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims.---(1) The (Provincial Government) may, by Notification in the (official Gezette) appoint any Commissioner for Workman's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deductions from the wages, (or non- payment of dues relating, to provident fund or gratuity payment under any law) or delay in the payment or wages, of persons employed or paid in that area.
(2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment or wages (or of any dues relating to provident fund or gratuity payment under any law) has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practioner, or any' official of a registered trade union authorised in writing to act on his behalf, or any Inspector under this Act, (or of any heirs of an employed person who has died) or any other person acting with the permission of the Authority appointed under sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for direction under subsection (3): ' Provided that every such application shall be presented within (three years) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date of which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be: ' Provided further that any application may be admitted after the said period of (three years)' when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for non-making the application within such period.
(3) When any application under subsection (2) is entertained, the Authority shall hear the applicant and employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and, after such further inquiry (if any) as may be necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other person isliable under this Act, direct to refund to the employed person (or, if the applicant is one of the heirs of an employed person the payment to such applicant,) of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, to gather with the payment of such compensation as the Authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding ten rupees in the latter: ' Provided that no direction for the payment of compensation shall be made in the case of delayed wages if the Authority is satisfied that the delay was due to--
(a) bona fide error or bona fide dispute as to the amount payable to the employed person, or
(b) the occurrence of an emergency or the existence of exceptional circumstances, such that the person responsible for the payment of the wages was unable, though exercising responsible diligence, to make prompt payment, or
(c) the failure of the employed person to apply for or accept payment.
(4) If the Authority hearing any application under this section is satisfied that it was either malicious or vexatious, the Authority may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees be paid to the employer or other person responsible for the payment, of wages by the person presenting the application.
(5) Any amount directed to be paid under this section may be recovered---
(a) if the Authority is a Magistrate, by the Authority as if it were a fine imposed by him as Magistrate, and
(b) if the Authority is not Magistrate, by the Authority as an arrear of land-revenue or, in the prescribed manner, by the Authority by distress and sale of the movable property belonging to the person by whom the amount is to be paid, or by attachment and sale of the immovable property belonging to such person).
Section 17. Appeal---(1) An appeal against a direction made under (subsection (3) or subsection
(4) of section 15 may be preferred within thirty days of the date on which the direction was made....
Before the (Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) within whose jurisdiction the cause of action to which the appeal relates arose.)
(a) by, the employer or other person responsible for the payment of Wages under section 3, if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation exceeds three hundred rupees (Provided that no appeal under this clause shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with the Authority the amount payable under the direction appealed against, or)
(b) by an employed person or, If he has died, by any of his heirs, if the total amount of wages claimed to have been withheld from the employed person or from the unpaid group to which he belonged exceeds fifty rupees, or)
(c) by any person directed to pay a penalty under (subsection (4))of section 15.
(1-A) All appeals pending before any District Court under this section immediately before the commencement of the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974, shall on such commencement, stand transferred to, and be disposed of by, the Labour Court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action, to which the appeal relates arose.)
(2) Save as provided in subsection (1), any direction made under subsection (3) of (subsection (4)) of section 15 shall be final.
8. The object of the Act is the regulation of payment of wages of certain classes of persons employed in industrial or commercial establishments or by railway administration. Section 15 of the Act lays down that the Provincial Government may, by Notification in the official Gazette, appoint any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of the Civil Court or as a Magistrate, to be the Authority to hear and decide the claims. Under subsection
(3) thereof, the Authority may, after hearing an applicant and employer or other persons responsible for payment of wages and after such further inquiry, if any, as may be necessary, direct the payment of wages to the applicant together with much compensation as it may think fit.
Section 17 of the Act, provides a remedy of an appeal before the Labour Court (previously the District Court) against a direction made under section 15(3). By virtue of section 18 the Authority is vested with all powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) for the limited purpose of taking evidence, to enforce attendance of witnesses, compelling production of documents and section 195 and of Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit for recovery of wages or against any deduction from wages of such an employee is barred by the provisions of section 22 of the Act. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Woolen and Textile Mills v. Government of the Punjab (2004 PLC 170).
9. In view of the above circumstances, this writ petition is notmaintainable and is dismissed.