' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner is a renowned hotel in Lahore, where respondent No,2 was serving as Chef Saucier, who filed an application on 10-8-2006 before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Lahore for payment of his wages since 4987 till 2005. The said application was contested by the present petitioner, issues were framed, evidence of respondent No,2 was recorded on 13-7-2007 and subsequently the petitioner's evidence followed on 20-7-2007. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, respondent No,1 i.e, the Authority decided the case on 24-8-2007 against respondent No,2, who preferred an appeal and the learned Labour Court No,2 vide order dated 4-6-2008 remanded the case to respondent No,1 with the following observations:--- "A perusal of record of the Authority shows that evidence of claimant is neither signed by the Authority, nor stamped. Similarly documents produced in evidence have also neither been properly exhibited/marked, nor signed and stamped by the Authority. The impugned judgment thus suffers from infirmity and irregularity and for this reason is not sustainable in the eye of law. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the Authority with a direction to record evidence of the parties afresh, complete the same in all respects and shall duly exhibit/mark the documents as well, which the parties shall produce in their evidence and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties within a period of two months from the receipt of record. Parties are directed to appear before the Authority on 10-6-2008.
' A copy of this order along with record be sent to the Authority. File be consigned to record."
2. Pursuant to the order dated 4-6-2008 passed by the learned Labour Court No,2, respondent No,1 again recorded evidence of respondent No,2 afresh.
3. On 15-7-2008 the petitioner filed an application stating therein that fresh evidence of respondent No,2 should not be considered and should be ignored but the same was dismisaed by respondent No,1 vide order dated 17-7-2008, which order is being impugned by way of writ jurisdiction in this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the case at length and submits with vehemence that respondent Ncil has decided the application without adverting to the contents of the application even, did not consider the question of law raised by Ole petitioner, rendering the impugned order a violation of sectication 24-A of the General Clauses Act.
5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner is repeatedly asked by this Court that whether any other point is to be pressed in support of his case, but learned counsel confined his submissions that his case revolves around only the non-adherence of the provisions of section 24- A of the General Clauses Act which is a sufficient ground for setting aside the impugned order dated 17-7-2008.
6. On the other hand, respondent No,2 who has appeared in person, stood behind the impugned order.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. At the outset, it is clarified that the relief under writ jurisdiction is a matter of discretion which the Court may or may not grant depending upon the circumstances of the case and other factors which the Court considers important in forwarding or withholding the relief prayed for. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 17-7-2008 passed by respondent No, 1.
9. After hearing both the parties at length and perusal of the impugned order dated 17-7-2008, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for due to various reasons discussed here in below.
10. First of all the petitioner has failed to understand the plain and unambiguous order passed by the learned Labour Court No,2 which is crystal clear to the effect that the judgment of the Authority i.e, respondent No,1 was set aside and the case was remanded with the direction to record evidence of the parties afresh and to decide the matter afresh due to the reason that the evidence was neither signed nor stamped and furthermore documents produced in evidence were not properly exhibited or marked, thus respondent No,1 under the dictates of the said order has not committed any illegality or irregularity in recording the evidence of the parties afresh because the previous evidence was of no legal effect after such an order that was passed by the learned Labour Court No,2 dated 4-6-2008.
11. Secondly, the petitioner is trying to achieve the end through an improper means by challenging the order of the Authority in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It should be reminded here that it is well settled law that writ jurisdiction comes into play only when there is no other alternate remedy available to the aggrieved person. Furthermore, it is also well settled that an action which cannot be done directly should D not be done indirectly. The petitioner in the instant case is trying indirectly to pursue a relief which is otherwise not available to it on this forum.
12. Even if the legal technicalities discussed above are left aside, the perusal of the petition and the prayer is clear that the petitioner is asking for a direction to respondent No,1 to record the same evidence as was recorded earlier. It is important to note that the petitioner is claiming for a relief which if granted would directly have an adverse impact of denying respondent No,2 one of his fundamental rights, to establish his case by giving evidence and bringing on record all the necessary details of his case in order to prove it. It is the right of every individual/litigant to provide his/her case by adducing all and any evidence he/she can in his/her favour. The petitioner by challenging the impugned order of the Authority/respondent No,1 is virtually putting a clog and fettering such a fundamental right of respondent No,2 to adduce evidence in his own favour and to prove his case which should not be allowed, rather it must be discouraged.
13. Another reason for disallowing the relief prayed for by the petitioner is that by directing respondent No,1 to record the same evidence as before or allowing the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Authority through the writ jurisdiction of this Court would open a Pandora box in the already heavy burdened High Courts and direction of this nature would open all floodgates allowing to challenging the decisions of the Authority through an indirect and improper relief. The procedure laid down for appeal before the competent Court/Tribunal should be followed by all litigants and such indirect ways of challenging the decisions of the Court/Authority/Tribunal should be discouraged in order to ensure that the legal system is as clear, transparent and easy to follow as possible.
14. Even otherwise, respondent No,1/Authority has perfectly adhered to the order of Labour Court No,2 in recording the evidence of respondent No,2 afresh and as such the impugned order dated 17-7-2008 dismissing the petitioner's application is perfectly within the bounds of law and does not in any way suffer from lack of reasoning as contemplated by section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.
15. There being no merit in the case of the petitioner and even otherwise the petitioner would not in any way be prejudiced by recording evidence of the parties afresh, I see fit to uphold the decision of the Authority/respondent No,1 and for the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.