' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.--- Through this constitutional petition the petitioners have impugned the legality and propriety of order dated 6-2-2006 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, South Division, Karachi, whereby the decretal amount of Rs,151,770 earlier deposited by the petitioners before the Commissioner/Authority towards gratuity of deceased Tanveer Ahmed viz. Son of respondent No,1 and Rs,5,000 being cost, was released to respondent No, 1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Tanveer Ahmed was an employee of the petitioner- Establishment. On 28-7-1993 he stood retired on medical grounds and thereafter expired on 26-7- 1993 in a road accident. As the petitioner-Establishment did not allow any compensation and gratuity to the father of deceased Tanveer Ahmed viz. Respondent No,1, he filed two applications before respondent No,2 i.e, for payment of death compensation and gratuity amount to the legal heirs of the deceased.
3. The petitioners contested the claim of respondent No,1, however, respondent No,2 allowed the claim of gratuity amounting to Rs,1,51,770 plus Rs,5,000 as cost as well as the claim of Group Insurance amounting to Rs,1,00,000.
4. The petitioner challenged the said order before Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal by filing Appeal No,8 of 2000. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal vide order, dated 8-9-2000 thereby directing the petitioner to approach the Service Tribunal by adopting due procedure because of bar as contemplated in section 2-A newly inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petitioner thereafter filed Constitutional Petition No,D-1452 of 2000 in this Court impugning therein the aforesaid two orders dated 25-10-1999 and 8-9-2000. The said petition was disposed of vide order, dated 17-5-2001 with the modification in the order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent No,1 would be deemed to have been dismissed and that order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, dated 25-10-1999 was set aside. Simultaneously the petitioner had impugned the order dated 25- 10-1999 before the Sindh Labour Court No,V, Karachi in Appeal No,6 of 1999. However, in view of disposal of the abovesaid constitutional petition by this Court, the Labour Court also rejected the claim of respondent No,1 vide order, dated 28-10-2001. Thereafter respondent No,1 filed an application before respondent No,2 for release of the amount of gratuity and cost to the tune of Rs,1,56,770 earlier deposited by the petitioner with respondent No,2. After hearing the parties the said amount was released to respondent No,
1. Hence this petition.
5. The contentions raised by both the parties have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.
6. It is an admitted position that order, dated 25-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Central Division, Karachi whereby the claim of respondent No,1 for gratuity amounting to Rs,1,51,770 was allowed with cost of Rs,5,000, was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No,D-1452 of 2000 vide order, dated 17-5-2001. It would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder relevant observations from the said order:--- "Admittedly the case before the C.W.C. And the Authority under the P.W. Act was filed in 1994 and after incorporation of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, the C.W.C. And the Authority under the P.W. Act had ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter of respondent No,1 as he had become a civil servant. The proceedings before the C.W.C. And the Authority under the P.W. Act stood abated on the day when section 2-A was incorporated in the Service Tribunals Act. All the proceedings in the case thereafter were without any lawful authority and void ab initio. The order passed by the C.W.C. And the Authority under the P.W. Act dated 25-10-1999 had no legal sanction and was an unlawful order, which did not create any right or interest and which was not to be enforced.
' Under the above discussion this constitutional petition along with the miscellaneous application stand disposed of with the modification in the order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent No,1 would be deemed to have been dismissed and that order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, dated 25-10-1999 being without lawful authority and of no legal effect is set aside."
7. Following the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid constitutional petition, learned Sindh Labour Court No,V, Karachi dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners for want of jurisdiction vide order, dated 29-10-2001. The relevant observations from the said order are reproduced as under:-- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that since the Honorable Chief Justice Syed Saeed Ashhad and Mr. Justice Zahid Qurban Alvi, vide order, dated 17-5-2001 ordered that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunal Act, that C.W.C. And the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 25-10-1999 has no legal sanction and was an unlawful order which did not create any right or interest and which was not to be enforced. As regards to the entitlement of claim of Rs,1,51,770 as gratuity the son of the respondent in his life has not applied for the same as such the respondent is not entitled for the same. Finding accordingly."
8. Needless to emphasize that once superior forum has dealt with a matter and given a particular finding on certain issue, the lower forum has absolutely no authority to discuss such issue. The lower forum cannot sit on the findings given by superior forum. In the instant case a Division Bench of this Court after elaborately discussing the point involved in the matter, had already given its findings and set aside the order, dated 25-10-1999 whereby gratuity amount was granted to respondent No,1 vide order, dated 17-5-2001, such order was binding upon respondent No,2 viz. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. In the circumstances, order dated 6-2-2006 whereby respondent No,2 released the said amount lying deposited, was coram non judice and nullity in the eye of law. The same is accordingly set aside.
9. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that so far merits are concerned, the case of respondent No,1 has certainly some weight. In the order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court merits were, at all, not discussed. The order revolves around the point as to whether after insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Authority, or for that matter Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, had any jurisdiction to entertain the application and appeal respectively. It seems that after disposal of the constitutional petition and appeal by the Labour Court, respondent No,1 has continuously been agitating the matter but with a wrong forum which has no jurisdiction. In the circumstances, it would be open to respondent No,1 to seek appropriate remedy, if any, and while doing so the bar of limitation will not come in his way, his case to be treated as fallen under the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act.
' With the above observation, this constitutional petition stands allowed.