' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---We intend to decide captioned petitions by one consolidated judgment having similar facts and law.
2. Necessary facts out of which the present petitions arise are that Abdul Haq respondent in C.P.
1422-L/2007 was appointed as Senior Clerk on 19.11.1975. He claimed Rs, 3,13,160/- out of which the petitioner paid Rs, 1,45,160/-leaving the balance of Rs, 1,68,900/-. Petitioner had failed to pay the outstandings to the respondent Abdul Haq. He filed an application before the authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The outstandings of the respondent was accepted by the petitioner by filing written statement before the said authority. This fact was also mentioned and highlighted by the authority vide its order dated 15.9.2004 while accepting the claim of the respondent under section 15(2) and directed the petitioner to pay the claim to him alongwith compensation.
Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No, 3 Ferozwala which was dismissed vide order dated 7.12.2004 for non-deposit of amount as directed by the authority to be paid and for want of filing of the certificate to that effect.
3. Muhammad Saleem respondent in C.P. 1423-L/ 2007 joined the services of the petitioner as Sanitary Supervisor from 27th June, 1998 to 30.6.2001 who claimed Rs, 75920, by filing application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. His application was accepted and petitioner was directed vide order dated 19.2.2004 to pay the amount claimed within 30 days to him. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Ferozwala which Was dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2004 for non-compliance of proviso of section 17(1)(a). The claim of the respondent was accepted by the petitioner as evident from the contents of the order of the authority.
4. Abbas Ali 'respondent in C.P. 1421-L/2007 was appointed, as Octroi Clerk on 9.11.1975 'and retired from service on 31.12.2002. He claimed Rs, 3,47,301/80 being amount of retirement benefits and gratuity. Petitioner failed to pay the said amount to the respondent who preferred application under section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the authority which was accepted vide order dated 15.2.2004 whereby direction was issued to the petitioner for payment of Rs, 3,47,000/- as claimed and additionally like amount as compensation. Petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Ferozwala which was dismissed on 7.12.2004 as appeal was filed without certificate to the effect that amount awarded by the authority as been deposited.
Petitioner being aggrieved filed writ petitions before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which were dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence these petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned High Court had erred in law to dismiss the Constitutional petitions of the petitioners against the respondents without adverting to the facts and circumstances of the cases in hand as the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter. Petitioners had filed three applications before the authority that authority had no jurisdiction, to take the cognizance of the matter. The authority had erred in law to overrule the objection of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner as evident from the impugned order. The learned first appellate Court also erred in law to dismiss the appeals of the petitioner as the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount claimed by the respondents in terms of proviso of section 17(1)(a) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The impugned judgment is also not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Town Committee Ghakharmartdi Versus Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala and 57 others (PLD 2002 SC 452). He further urges that question of law had been decided by this Court which has binding effect in terms of Articles 189-190 of the Constitution but the learned High Court had erred in law to decide the case otherwise. The authority had ex-facie no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter. This fact was not considered by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment. He further urges that first Appellate Court had also knocked out the petitioner on technical ground.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Town Committee Ghakharmandi Supra was distinguished by the High. Court after taking into consideration para materia provisions of different laws. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner had considered the provisions of the Factories Act, 1934 whereas words Industrial establishment or commercial establishment were inserted in the provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as amended through Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001. The petitioners had accepted the claim of all the three respondents before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, therefore, respondent may not be refused their legal dues outstanding against the petitioner.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The objection with regard to jurisdiction was rejected by the authority as evident from the contents of the orders passed by the authority in terms of section 2(6) of Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001. Petitioner being aggrieved filed three appeals before the Labour Court No, 3, Ferozwala in violation of conditions prescribed under section 17(1)(a) which contained following proviso: "Provided that no appeal under this clause shall lie -unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with the authority the amount payable under the direction appealed against".
8. Mere reading the aforesaid provision of law clearly envisages that it is condition precedent that petitioner has to file certificate alongwith certificate of payment which is mandatory in nature.
Without compliance of the para meters and conditions prescribed in proviso of section 17(1)(a) appeals filed by the petitioner were not competent/ maintainable which were rightly dismissed by the first' Appellate Court and approved by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment. The order of the first Appellate Court , and the impugned judgment are in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Syed Match Company Ltd. Versus Authority under Payment of Wages Act and others (2003 SCMR 1493), Mughal Surgical Pvt. Ltd, and others Versus Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7 and others (2006 SCMR 590) and Haji Sheik Noor Din and sons Versus Muhammad Fayyaz and two other (2006 PLC 623).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners had failed distinguish the aforesaid precedents relied upon by the Lear; High Court in the impugned judgment. Even otherwise, mentioned above, the order of the first Appellate Court impugned judgment of the High Court are in consonance v the aforesaid provisions, of Payment of Wages Act. Once condition of precedent was not fulfilled then the appeals filed by the petitioner before the first Appellate Court were competent. See Mansab Ali's case (PLD 1971 SC 124). It admitted fact that the authority under the Payment of was Act has rejected the objection of the jurisdiction raised by the petitioner against which the petitioner had filed appeals against the respondents before the Labour Court under the aforesaid provisions without fulfilling the requirements and para meters prescribed in the said section. It is a settled proposition of law that when a thing is to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and not otherwise. See Atta Muhammad Qureshi's case (PLD 1971 SC 61) and Mughal Surgical's case (2005 PLC 634). The learned High Court has rightly observed that an amendment through the notification has prospective effect and not retrospective. The same is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd's case (1992 SCMR 1652). It is also a settled law that wrong decision does not mean that it is necessarily without jurisdiction as law laid down by this Court in A. Habib Ahmed's case (NLR 1992 SCJ 577). It is a settled proposition of law that in case the order of the authority was proper and valid on merits then this Court does not interfere to set aside the same only that authority has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter coupled with the fact that petitioner accepted claim of the respondents before authority even otherwise pension and other dues earned by the respondents are no more bounty of state as law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Said and case (PLD 1973 SC 514). In case this Court has exercised power in favour of the petitioner then it tantamounts to in aid of injustice to drag the respondent-employees of the petitioner to agitate the matter afresh before the competent forum which would be decided at least after couple of years hich could not be in the interest of justice. This Court ha to provide justice to all the parties in view of Articles 4, 5(2), 9 and 187 of the Constitution. See Muhammad Saleem's case (NLR 1992 Service 128). It is also a settled law that in case where substantial justice has been done, it is not necessary to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction on the basis of technicalities alone. It is a settled law that Constitutional- jurisdiction is discretionary in character. Where the Courts below had given concurrent conclusions, this Court generally does not interfere in the conclusions arrived at by the High Court and the Tribunals below as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Khuda Bukhsh's case (1974 SCMR 279), Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case (PLD 1981 SC. 522) and Muhammad Sharif's case (PLD 1981 SC 246). It is also a settled law ,that, as mentioned above, Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner coupled with the fact that petitioner has accepted the claim of the respondents as evident from its replies filed before the authority, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See, Nawabzada Raunaq Ali's case (PLD 1973 SC 236), Rana Muhammad Arshad's case (1998 SCMR 1462). Wali Muhammad's case (PLD 1974 SC 106), Kh. Muhammad Sharif's case (PLD 1988 Lahore 725) and Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan's case (PLD 1989 SC 166).
10. In view of what has been discussed above, these petitions have no merit and the same are dismissed.