' This writ petition calls in question the validity of the order dated 30th June, 1981, of the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore,
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition may be briefly stated. Respondent. No, 1 filed an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act (IV) of 1936 (hereinafter called the Act), claiming therein 12 months wages amounting to Rs, 4,000 with Rs, 10 as compensation for the reason that he was retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 9th January, 1980, without giving biro a notice to avail the full benefit of leave preparatory to retirement. The Authority under the Act, by order dated 15th February, 1981 dismissed the application on the ground that respondent No, 1 was duly informed about his date of retirement. On appeal, the Labour Court reversed the finding on reappraisal of the evidence by order dated 30th June, 1981, with the direction to the petitioner to pay to respondent No, 1 his pay for 180 days in lieu of the refusal of leave preparatory to retirement as contemplated by Pakistan Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 5th of October, 1978.
3. Mr. Ismail Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No, I was verbally informed of his date of retirement and, therefore, it was incorrectly observed by the Appellate Authority that no intimation was given to the petitioner, inasmuch as, intimation relating to the retirement of respondent No, 1 and all others who attained the age of 60 years in Lahore Division, was duly brought to the notice of all concerned including respondent No, 1 vide notice dated 30th March, 1977 (Annexure C). Is it finally contended that it was duty of respondent No, 1 to avail L. P. R.
And no corresponding statutory duty is cast upon the petitioner to intimate to their employees as to the date of their retirement and that in any case, only when the leave is refused, the question of making encashment of refused leave under the relevant Rules would arise. This point was admittedly not raised by the petitioner either before the Authority or before the Labour Court.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The perusal of notice dated 30th March, 1977 (Annexure C) would show that the petitioner was required to inform all the employees who were due to retire on completion of 60 years to apply for L. P. R. Well in time for sanction if so desired. In the instant case, the Labour Court after re-appraisal of evidence gave a finding of fact that no such intimation was given to respondent No, I. This finding is not open to interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is also estopped by his con, duct to raise the legal issues which he never took up before the Courts below. The impugned order is based on cogent reasons and does not suffer from any illegality. This order shall, however, confine to the facts of the present case alone.
' In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.