' NASIM SABIR, J.---Through the instant Constitution petition the petitioner has called in question the validity of the impugned order dated 12-4-1997 passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the order dated 24-3-1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9 Multan to the extent of remanding the case to the Authority for decision afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondent-applicant to appear in Court as his own witness. The Authority was directed to hear separate arguments in each of the cases and shall decide the case at the most within the period of six months, as the cases were sufficiently old. The parties were directed to appear before the Authority on 17-4-1999. The petitioner obtained a stay order vide order dated 20- 4-1999 passed in C.M.
299. However, it may be pointed out that the said interim relief whereby the operation of the impugned judgment was suspended by this Court vide order dated 18-2-2004 on the ground that the case was pending since 1999 and the petitioner was deriving benefit of interim order dated 20- 4-1999 Whereby operation of the impugned judgment had been .Suspended. "The respondents are poor Labourers who had still not received any benefit of the impugned judgment which was passed as far back as 1999. This Court considered it fair to withdraw the interim relief granted to the petitioner on 20-4-1999 accordingly the interim relief was withdrawn vide order dated 18-2- 2004.
2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No,3 filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for issuance of direction for the payment of amount i,e, Rs,68,400. The claim filed by the respondent No,3 was controverted by the writ petitioner on manifold legal and factual grounds. In view of pleadings of the parties the learned Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter called Authority) framed the issues and thereafter the evidence of the parties was recorded. The respondent No,3 in support of his claim produced documents Ex.P/1 to P/4 through counsel and closed the evidence whereas the writ petitioner produced four witnesses along with documents Exh. R/1 to R/4.
3. Learned Authority after hearing the arguments accepted the claim of the respondent No,3 and issued a direction for the deposit of amount i,e, Rs,68, 400 within 30 days vide order dated, 12-4- 1997. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 12-4-1997 the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan who while accepting the appeal remanded the case of the Authority for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the respondent No,3 to appear in the Court as his own witness; vide order dated 24-3-1999 which has been impugned by the writ petitioner before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strongly argued that the documents produced by the respondents were not admissible in evidence as the claim of the respondent No,3 was not substantiated with any evidence. Therefore, the Authority should have dismissed the claim.
Further submits that the lower Authority had acted arbitrarily and mechanically and passed the impugned order dated 12-4-1997 in a slipshod manner without giving any finding on any of the issue framed. Lastly submits that the impugned order dated 24-3-1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9 to the extent of remanding the case for afresh decision after giving an opportunity to the respondent No,3 is also without lawful authority. Further submits that the Authority had provided ample opportunity to the respondent to produce their evidence but respondent failed to produce evidence before the Authority as well as before the Appellate Court eventually valuable right had accrued in favour of the petitioner, which cannot be denied on the basis of negligence on the part of the counsel. Lastly submits that it is settled principle of law that no one could be permitted to fill in the lacuna or correct the short-coming in evidence adduced during the proceedings at the trial stage.
5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,3 has strongly opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that case was remanded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan with a direction to decide the same within 6 months and the parties were directed to appear before the Authority on 17-4-1999 and since then the petitioner is running from pillar to post in order to get his gratuity and other allowances which were due to him and had not been paid so far without any fault on his part.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Without commenting upon the merits of the cases lest it prejudice the case of either party suffice it to say that the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan had remanded the case to the Authority while accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the case had been remanded by the learned Punjab Labour Court for decision afresh after giving an opportunity to the respondent to appear in Court as their own witnesses. The Authority shall hear separate arguments in each of the cases and decide the case at the most within the period of 6 months as the cases are sufficiently old.
While remanding the case learned Court has also observed that the respondent did not enter the witness-box in support of his case perhaps due to lack of proper guidance or handling of his case by the learned counsel who thought it proper that there was sufficient documentary material available on record in order to prove their case. It is an established law that any action honestly taken by the counsel for a party during proceeding without the mandate given, the party will be bound by it. The only remedy available to a party would be to file a suit for damages against the said counsel but here the situation in this case is somewhat different, here the respondents were poor workers they could not afford service of a good lawyer or even could not import instructions properly to their lawyer who conducted their case but the fact remains that there was sufficient documentary evidence on record for the grant of their gratuity. Learned Court has also observed that the original record of the case before the Authority also speaks volume for the fact that there was tampering and cuttings in the date of the final order. Without going into detail of the norder it has been noted that the Authority had not properly scrutinized the record of the case and has passed the order in a slipshod manner respondent had claimed on the basis of fixed minimum wages for the unskilled workers, semi-skilled and skilled workers, for payment of the settlement dues at 30 days pay and also one month's notice pay and other dues lying at their credit alleging that the Government had fixed minimum wages of the unskilled workers, semi-skilled and skilled workers at the rate of Rs,1500 P.M. And 1850 P.M. Respectively, the Authority in its impugned order made the discussion of gratuity and allowed gratuity amounting Rs,1,53,000 although it was not so claimed as gratuity. Keeping all these factors in view the learned Labour Court had rightly remanded the case to the Authority to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity to the respondent to appear in Court. The Authority should scrutinize the whole record carefully and redress the grievance of the poor workers. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality committed by the Punjab Appellate Court while passing the impugned order. I see no arbitrariness or perversity of reasoning in the impugned order, which has been passed in order to safeguard the interest of the workers and fair administration of justice. Accordingly this petition is dismissed being without any merits. However, the Authority to whom case stands remanded vide impugned order, is reminded of the fact, that stay order had been vacated vide order 18-2-2004, therefore, the case be decided expeditiously, keeping in view the remand order dated 24-3-1999.