This revision calls in question the legality of the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 09, Multan whereby an appeal preferred by the Respondent No, 3 against the order dated 13.05.2017 passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 was accepted and the petition was remanded to the Authority for deciding afresh.
2. Ghulam Fareed Zahid, the Respondent No, 3 made a petition u/S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 against the present petitioner, before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 claiming a recovery of Rs. 5079000/- with ten times compensation.
3. The Respondent No, 1 in the said petition/present revision petitioner raised the objection before the Authority regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Authority at Multan and consequently, Vide order dated 13.05.2017 the Authority dismissed the application for want of territorial jurisdiction.
4. The respondent being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 09, Multan which was allowed vide impugned order dated 28.08.2017 and the petition was remanded to the learned Authority with the direction to decide it afresh. A preliminary issue was framed by the learned Appellate Court as under: "Whether the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 at Multan has jurisdiction to entertain the application of the appellant" (OP/Appellant/ Petitioner, Ghulam Fareed Zahid)
The Authority was directed to first decide the preliminary issue after recording the evidence of the parties and thereafter decide the application on merits if the authority had the territorial jurisdiction.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.08.2017 the present revision petition has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 13.05.2017 passed by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 was not appeal-able as no direction was issued under sub-section (3) or (4) of Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act 1936, therefore, the learned Appellate Court had exercised the jurisdiction not vested with him, hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel has relied on 1984 SCM R 1311, AIR 1957 Madras 68, PLD 2008 SC 571, A.I.R (30) 1943 Allahabad 243.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent No, 3 has contended that the learned Authority had dismissed the petition without providing an opportunity to the Respondent No, 3 to produce evidence, therefore, the learned Appellate Court has rightly remanded the same after framing preliminary issue with the direction to provide an opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence on said issue, hence the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and is liable to be maintained.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available records minutely.
9. An appeal against the direction made under sub-section (3)
(4) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act,1936 may be preferred within 30 days of the date on which direction was made, before the Appellate Court.
Sub-sections 3 & 4 of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 reads as under:
15. Claims out of deductions from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claims.--
(1) ...................
(2) ..................
(3) When any application under sub-section (2) is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under Section 3, or give them an opportunity of being heard, and, after such further inquiry (if any) as may be necessary, may, without prejudice to any other penalty, to which such employer or other person is liable under this Act, direct the refund to the employed person [or if the applicant is one of the heirs of an employed person, the payment to such applicant] of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted in the former case and not exceeding ten rupees in the latter: Provided that no deduction for the payment of compensation shall be made in the case of delayed wages if the authority is satisfied that the delay was due to-- (a)...............
(b)..............
(c)....................
(4) If the authority hearing any application under this section is satisfied that it was either malicious or vexatious, the authority may direct that a penalty not exceeding fifty rupees be paid to the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages by the person presenting the application.
10. A plan reading of Section 17(I) of Payment of Wages Act 1936 clearly indicates that an appeal lies against the order of Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 only when any direction has been issued under sub-section (3) or (4) of the Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. In the instant case the application of the Respondent No, 3 was dismissed holding that the Respondent No, 3 was appointed at Lahore and there is only a warehouse of the company at Multan. The Respondent No, 2 does not exist in Multan, therefore, the Authority had got no territorial jurisdiction. No direction was made under sub-section (3) or (4) of Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, therefore, the appeal against the said order dated 13.05.2017 was incompetent. The learned Appellate Court/ Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,
09. Multan had exercised the jurisdiction not vested with him, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2017 is not in accordance with law, the same is hereby set-aside and the revision petition in hand is hereby accepted accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the records room after due completion.