' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2898-L to 2901-L of 2003, 279-L, 493-L, 68-L and 99-L to 102-L of 2004 as all these petitions arise out of the similar facts and involve identical legal issues.
2. Mian Abdul Quddoos, Advocate Supreme Court appearing in the C.Ps. Nos.2898-L to 2901-L of 2003, Rana Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court appearing in C.P.279-L of 2004 and Mr. Mahmud-ulIslam, Advocate-on-Record appearing in C.P. No,493-L of 2004 submit at the very outset that they had instructions to withdraw their respective petitions to enable the petitioners to go back to the appellate forum under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with fresh appeals after depositing the decrial amount and consequently pray for permission to withdraw the said petitions.
3. The prayer is reasonable and is allowed. Civil Petitions Nos.2898-L to 2901-L of 2003, C.P. No,279-L and C.P. No,493-L of 2004 are dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Mr. M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court, however, elected to pursue the petitions filed by him and was consequently heard in support thereof.
5. The facts common to the petitions i,e, Civil Petitions Nos.68-L and 99-L to 102-L of 2004 are that the private respondents who were employed with the petitioner-Company tiled claims before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as according to the said respondents the petitioner-Company had illegally deducted certain amounts of money from their wages. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act allowed the claims of the respondents which led the present petitioner to the Labour Court with separate appeals under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which appeals were dismissed essentially on the ground that the appellant before the learned Labour Court i,e, petitioner before us had failed to deposit the wages ordered to be paid by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
6. The petitioner then approached the Lahore High Court through separate writ petitions which have since been dismissed through a consolidated judgment dated 17-11-2003.
7. Hence these petitions.
8. The only submission made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner in all these petitions was that the proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which required deposit of the decretal amount was a clog on the right of the petitioners and thus, had to be ignored.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length.
10. Reliance had been rightly placed by the learned Judge in Chamber on the case of Syed Match Company Limited 2003 SCM R 1493 by distinguishing the same from other cases decided by this Court on the ground that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was a law which had been enacted for the benefit of the workmen and had to be interpreted and applied in the spirit which had led to the enactment of the said law. The judgments cited by the learned Advocate Supreme Court were the judgments arising out of enactments other than the Payment of Wages Act 1936 and were no precedent for deciding the present case. It may be added that the right of appeal is not a natural or an inherent right of litigants but is a statutory right granted by different laws under different enactments and such a right had to be considered and examined in the light of the conditions prescribed by the law granting the said right. Needless to add that under the enactment in the C.P.C. Or the Cr.P.C. Every order and decision is not appealable and we know that even under the C.P.C. There are provisions which prohibit grant of interim relief unless the decretal amount was deposited.
11. Having thus, examined this matter from all angles we find that no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment.
12. Civil Petitions Nos.68-L and 99-L to 102-L of 2004 are, therefore, dismissed. .