CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- I intend to decide the following Constitutional petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law: ---
(i) WRIT PETITION No. 14999 of (ii) WRIT PETITION No. 2004; 15000 of 2004;
(iii) WRIT PETITION No. 15001 of 2004:
(v) WRIT PETITION No. 15003 of 2004;
(vii) WRIT PETITION No. 15005 of 2004;
(ix) WRIT PETITION No: 15007 of 2004;
(xi) WRIT PETITION No. 15009 of 2004;
(xiii) WRIT PETITION No. 15011 of 2004;
(iv) WRIT PETITION No. 15002 of 2004;
(vi) WRIT PETITION No. 15004 of 2004;
(viii) WRIT PETITION No. 15006 of 2004;
(x) WRIT PETITION No. 15008 of 2004;
(xii) WRIT PETITION No. 15010 of 2004;
(xiv) WRIT PETITION No. 15012 of 2004.
2. The brief facts out of which the aforesaid writ petitions arise are that the private respondents submitted the applications before the Workman Commissioner/Workman Compensation Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which were accepted by the respondent, Workman Commissioner/Workman Compensation Authority vide order dated 30.6.2003. The petitioners being aggrieved filed applications under Section 12(2), CPC which were dismissed as time-barred by Respondent No. 1. The petitioners being aggrieved filed the aforesaid Constitutional petitions.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that Respondent No. 1 erred in law to dismiss the applications of the petitioners as time-barred. The time is prescribed as three years by virtue of Article 181 of the Limitation Act.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that private respondents have filed applications before Respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Payment of Wages .Act, 1936, which were accepted by Respondent No. 1.
The petitioners have alternative remedy to file appeals before the Labour Court by virtue of Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 even after the repeal of IRO, 1969 on the well-known principle of legislation by reference or by incorporation as per law laid down by this Court in Pak International Air Lines Corporation's case (PLD 1979 Lahore 415), therefore, Constitutional petitions are not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 S.C. 246). The petitioners are well within their rights to avail the proper remedy before the Appellate Authority in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the competent forum.
6. With these observations the writ petitions are disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. .