SHUJAA T ALI KHAN, J.-- Succinctly , respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act (North Zone), Lahore (the Authority) regarding his claim qua unpaid wages from 01.01.2001 to 06.04.2015, worth Rs. 4,20,175/, As nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner-Company it was proceeded against ex-parte , on 31.08.2015 and after recording evidence of respondent No. 2 the Authority accepted the claim, vide order dated 12.10.2015 to the, tune of Rs. 2,57,536/-. After coming to know about the ex-parte order the petitioner-Company filed an application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings, dated 31.08.2015, as well as ex- parte order , ' dated 12.10.2015, which was dismissed by the Authority , vide order , dated 23.04.2016; hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company submits that while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner- Company the Authority did not consider that prior to passing ex-parte proceedings and final order notices were not served upon the petitioner-Company; that on the receipts issued by the courie r company instead of complete address of the petitioner-Company only few words .have been incorporated which denote that notices were not served upon the petitioner-Company; that the petitioner-Company only came to .know about passing of ex-parte proceedings and final order when the Police officials approached its office for execution of warrants of arrest issued by the Authority and that the petitioner-Company is ready to satisfy the claim of respondent No. 2, as has been done in similar case of one of his co-employee, but the Authority has awarded compensation much higher .than the entitlement of respondent No. 2. Relies on Haji Hussain Haji Dawood through regal Heirs and other v. M.Y.
Kherti (2002 SCMR 343) and Abdul Rashid Khan v. Government of Sindh through Secretary Labour on 12 others (2010 PLC 510 ),
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, representing the Authority , submits that after issuance of notice under registered A.D. it is presumed than the same Was served upon the addressee and that according to the law laid down in the case reported as Syed Match Company Ltd. through Managing Director v. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act and others (2003 SCMR 1493 ) any order passed by the Authority is appealable under section 17 of the. Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thus, in presence of alternate remedy instant petition is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the pat-ties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition, as well as the case-law cited at the bar .
6. Pursuant to order , dated 12.02.2018, original record of the Authority was summoned. Perusal of said record shows that notices were issued to the petitioner Company through courier for more than once and as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner-Com pany , despite service, it was proceeded against ex-parte . It is a matter of common knowledge that the courier companies incorporate few words of the particulars of the addressee, on the receipts, just for their internal use but they are bound to deliver the consignment on the address mentioned by the sender . It is not the case of the petitioner-Company that according to record of the courier company notices were not served upon the petitioner-Company . According to practice in vogue the courier companies report back the sender only in the event of non-delivery of consignment but when the same is delivered at its destination they maintain record of it. Though the petitioner-Company filed application for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings as well as ex-parte order but it did not bother to attach record of the courier company .
7. Considering from another angle, notices issued to the petitioner-Company under registered cover A.D., regarding implementation of the order passed by the Authority in favour of respondent No 2, were received by one Ms. Sadia, on 17.12.2015, thus, it cannot be believed that notices issued for service of the petitioner-Company contained wrong address.
8. Insofar as the case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner-Company is concerned, suffice it to note that question of condonation of limitation would only arise when the petitioner-Company was proceeded against ex- parte without its service, which being not the position the said cases are of no help for the petitioner-Company .
9. For what has been noted above, instant petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.