' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions No,11015, 11016, 11017, 11018, 8740, 8741 and 10827 of 2003 as common question oflaw and fact is involved in these matters and the same are' directed against the orders dated 19-6-2003 and 14-1-2003 passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are to the effectthat petitioners in all the cases, are a- small unit dealing in manufacturing of paper where number of workers is less than 20.
Respondent No,3 in the writ petitions employed in the petitioner's mills left jobs from there and filed claims before the 'Authority under the Payment. Of Wages Act. And the said authority (respondent No,2) passed an ex parte order accepting the claim of respondent No,3 of Rs,242100. The petitioners filed appeal before respondent No,1 Punjab Labour Court No,1 Lahore calling in question the order of respondent No,2 which was dismissed vide impugned order on the sole ground that appeal had been filed without depositing the amount appealed against.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgments/orders of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Writ Petitions No,1086 of 2002, 5579 of 2002 and 21-923 of 2001, wherein, the learned Single Judge while relying on-a judgment Passed by a Full Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Banking, Tribunal Lahore (PLD 1996Lahore 672) declared the condition requiring deposit of the entire disputed amount before preferring an appeal to be unlawful.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of- the respondents have vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that. High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction would not nullify the effect of section 17(1) (a) of Payment' of Wages Act, 1936. They relied on 'case of Syed Match Company Ltd. Reported as (2003 SCM R 1493).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The appeal before the Presiding Officer lies against the decision of the authority under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act. First, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the whole section 17 as follows:- - "17. Appeal.---(1) An appeal against a direction made under subsection (3) of subsection (4) of section 15 may be preferred within 30 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. We hold that contentions raised by the learned counsel are based on correct interpretation of the aforesaid provisions of law."
From the plain reading of above referred' section 17, (1) (a) it reveals that appeal before the Labour Court would be preferred within 30-days of the date on which the direction was made by the authority but no appeal under this clause shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is A 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.
7. A Constitution petition was filed before the Karachi High Court titled as "Ahmad Spinning Mills v.
Authority under Payment of Wages Act and others reported as (1999 PLC 26) wherein, it is observed that alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the order of authority and he could not invoke Constitutional jurisdiction merely on plea that remedy of appeal available to him was not efficacious and adequate as he had to deposit with Court huge amount ordered by the authority. Learned Judge dismissed that petition observing that intention of the legislature in enacting section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is very clear. It seems that the legislature intended the amount covered by an order under section 15 of said Act to be deposited in the Labour B Court before it entertained an appeal against such aebrder. Such a provision cannot be allowed to be- circumvented through Constitutional petition as purpose of Art. 199 of the Constitution is not to nullify effect of a legislative provision or to make statutory provision ineffective. The same proposition was also considered by a Division Bench of Karachi High Court in case of Chief Personnel Officer Pakistan Railways Lahore v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1983 PLC 1235) wherein, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of mandatory condition provided in proviso to section 17(1). It was observed that remedy by way of appealavailed without complying condition precedent, allowing to question order, of Authority-would defeat provisions of S.17 (1) (a).
8. In case of Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Aslam (1986 SCM R 1607) the Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan have observed in paragraph No,4 of the judgment which is reproduced as under:- "We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act on which the judgment of the learned High Court is based, mentions only the, period within which the amount should be deposited and not that it should be deposited before filing an appeal or after its institution."
The requirement of law for filing the appeal under section 17 of the Act is the attachment of a certificate of the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with the authority, the amount payable, under the direction appealed against.
9. In a similar matter in case titled as Syed Match Company v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act (2003 SCM R 1493) the Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan while dismissing the Civil petitions Nos.455 to 463 of 2002 on similar question of fact and law filedd against the. Judgment - of. Peshawar High Court have observed that Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court had been invoked in order to nullify effect of S.17(1)(a) of the Wages Act, 1936 which was mala fide and the Supreme, Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
10. In all the cases referred to above, the superior Courts have refused to exercise jurisdiction to, nullify the statutory provisions provided in the law by the legislature. The judgments passed by the Hon`ble Single Judge of this Court, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are in conflict with the dictum laid down by the High Court as well as apex Court.
11. As to the judgment of Full Bench of this Court titled as M/s. Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd.
(supra) is concerned, the question 'arises whether the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court is to be followed or the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In order to strengthen this argument, it would be appropriate to refer the provision of Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which enshrines that any decision of the Supreme Court, shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other Courts in Pakistan. The decisions of the superior judiciary are considered decisions of theCourt or an institution instead of decisions of individual Judge or Judges. The Supreme Court observed that if a Bench of a High Court is faced with situation where, on one side a decision of Full Bench of a High court is cited and, on the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court, on the same point is cited. According to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in suchsituation, a decision of the Supreme Court has to be followed in view of the clear provision of Article 189 of the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution left no scope for the learned Judge in the High Court to prefer the Full Bench decision over the decision of Supreme Court on a question of law. Reliance in this respect can be made to the case of Sher Muhammad v. Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner Multan (1981 SCM R 520).
12. In view of the above discussion, I am constrained to say that it is the judicial dignity to follow the decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan. Respondent No, has rightly dismissed the appeals of the petitioners for non-compliance, of the pre-conditions provided in proviso (a) to section 17(1) of Payment of Wages Act.
13. For ,the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.