1. Muhammad Ikram son of Abdul Rehman has filed three applications under the Payment of Wages Act (no. 46/66, 47/66 and 49/66) against S. Muhammad Din & Sons Ltd., Lahore. In case No. 46/66 the applicant has claimed his wages from 28-10-1956 to 31-12-1957, and from 1-1-s8 to 15-4-1965, amounting to Rs. 4,490/43. In Case No. 47/66 he has claimed his wages from 16-4-65 to 28-7-65 amounting to Rs. 1101.25 (including earned leave deductions etc). In Case No. 49/66 he has claimed his wages from December 1965 to April 1966, amounting to Rs. 720.
2. The respondent filed a written statement and raised the preliminary objection of limitation stating that the claim of the applicant in all the three cases was barred by time. In two cases no application for the condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner but in Case No. 46/66 an application was filed by him. After the issues were framed the cases were fixed for arguments on the preliminary issue of limitation. On 30-7-1966 when the arguments were to be heard from both parties, the representative of the petitioner objected to the appearance of the counsel for the respondent. On this point both parties filed written argument. For the reasons given in my order dated 28-7-1966 I held that the respondent could be represented through a legal practitioner and the case was again adjourned for arguments on the issue of limitation. The parties undertook to file written arguments on 8-8-1966 but in spite of the undertaking given to the Court the petitioner did not file the arguments and the respondent filed it the same day. On 31-8-1966 when the case was fixed for orders, on the question of limitation the petitioner appeared before the Court and filed an application for the condonation of delay in all the three cases, instead of filing the arguments on issue No. 1. It was not supported by any affidavit. A copy of the application was given to the counsel for the respondent to file replication which he filed on 1-9-1966.
3. Under the Payment of Wages Act; "every application shall be presented within 6 months from the date on which the deduc--tion from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of wages was due to be made."
4. I will now take up each case separately.
(i) Case No. 47/66.- In this case the applicant has claimed his wages from 16-4-1965 to 28-7-1965 and from 21-9-1965 to 13-11-1965. In the same application he has also claimed his wages from 28- 10-1956 to 14-4-1965. The total claim in the case is Rs. 1101.25. The petitioner did not file any application for the condonation of delay in this case at the time of filing his claim. In this case his claim relates to the year 1956, but he has filed this application on 18-5-1965. The entire claim is barred by time.
(ii) Case No. 46166.--As given in the statement attached to the application, the applicant has filed this claim for the period from 28-10-1956 to 15-4-1965. This claim also relates to the year 1956. It is time barred by about 10 years. He has filed an application for the condonation of delay in this case stating that he did not claim his wages within the period of limitation due to the fact that he was threatened with dismissal from service in case he claimed any wages. It cannot be considered to be the suffcient reason for filing the claim after a period of about 10 years. The Court has to exercise its discretion judiciously and not arbitrarily I. The provisions of law and the rulings given by their Lordships are to be kept in view before giving any decision in such cases. 1, will discuss it in the concluding paragraph of my order.
(iii) Case No. 49/66.-In this case the applicant has claimed a lump sum amount of Rs. 720 as illegal deductions considering himself to be continuously in service as according to him he was illegally discharged. In his statement attached to the application he has stated that he filed his first claim for Rs. 720 for the period from 16-4-1965 to 28-7-1965 and 21-9-1965 to 13-11-1965, He has given the reasons that as in the original application he wrongly impleaded the parties, it was dismissed by the Court, In this case he has not claimed his wages for the period from 16-4-1965 to 13-11-1965 but has claimed his wages 'from December 1965 to April 1966, for which period he was not in the service of the respondent. He was discharged on 20-9-1965. In his arguments the counsel for the respondent has stated that the petitioner was first removed from service on 28-5-65 and he was re-appointed on 28-7-1965. His services were again terminated on 20-9-1565. This Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the termination or illegal discharge from service. Under the Payment of Wages Act this Court has only the jurisdiction to pass an order about the deducted or delayed le wages if not paid by the employer. With regard to the unlawful discharge from service he has to seek his remedy from some other authority.
5. Instead of giving any arguments to justify the delay in filing these applications, the applicant has filed an application at this stage, without filing any affidavit, praying for the condonation of delay in all the cases. The applicant should have filed this application at the time of filing his claim. I have gone through G all the three cases and I find that the claim of the applicant is barred by time. In Case No. 46/66 he has claimed his wages from 2810-1956 i.e. after about 10 years. The counsel for the respondent has cited
(1) PLD 1962 Kar. 8 ,
(2) PLD 1959 Lah. 500.
(3) PLD 1952 Lab. 156 and
(4) PLD 1962 Lah. 364. in which their Lordsbips have held that the Court must exercise its discretion judiciously and not arbitrarily and that the Court was bound to dismiss the time barred claim if every day of the delay was net explained The applicant has not given sufficient reasons' for the condonation of delay except that he was threatened with dismissal. The fresh application for the condonation of delay filed at the stage of arguments is not supported by any affidavit and sufficient cause for the condonation of delay is not given by the applicant. In view of the rulings of their Lordships quoted by the counsel for the respondent, 1 dismisses all the three cases as barred by time.