DECISION ' These are 8 revision petitions, which were admitted no motu by this Tribunal. A stay order was also granted staying the operation of the order in respect of the amounts deposited with the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sukkur and Nawabshah.
2. The brief facts are that in order to provide relief in the Cost of Living the Government enacted the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sanctioned Rs, 35 as allowance with effect from 1st August, 1973. Through further amendments, Rs, 50 and Rs, 25 were sanctioned with effect from 8th June, 1974 and 7th April, 1975 respectively. Thus, the total amount of relief comes to Rs,
110. However, on the introduction of N. P. S. 1977 with effect from 1st July, 1977 the allowances were merged with the wages of the employees. Likewise from 1st July, 1980 and 1st July, 1981 the Government sanctioned Rs, 40 as Cost of Living Allowances and additional Cost of Living Allowance of Rs, 40 per month respectively be making amendments through amending Ordinance XXXIII of 1980 and Ordinance XXV of 1981. According to the applicants they are employees as defined in the Act are, therefore, entitled to receive the said relief/allow ances sanctioned by the Government through the amending Ordinances but the payment of their claim were either delayed or denied hence they submitted their applications under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act.
3. The applications were entertained by the relevant Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at Sukkur and Nawab Shah and the same Authority granted the relief.
4. Today, these 8 revision applications came for arguments before me and I have beard Messrs Ali Amjad, Hassan Hameedi, Ghulam Rasool Qureshi and also Mr. Manzar Alam, A. P. P. In the above revision petitions, the learned Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur directed the remand of these cases back to the respective Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for deciding the cases on merits.
However, the learned counsel Hassan Hameedi and Mr. Ali Amjad have criticised the order of the learned Labour Court who held the order of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to be void and because the orders were void, therefore, the period of limitation would not be counted in void orders. The learned Labour Court has misconceived the conception of void order. If an order is incorrect considering the facts and law, it may be called an incorrect order but not void order. A void order is that which is decided by a Court which is not competent to decide it. I am referred to PLD 1960 SC 237. The Supreme Court in the following words has made a distinction between an "incorrect" decision and a "void" decision-"a judgment is incorrect if it is wrong in law or fact : it is void if it is pronounced by an incompetent Tribunal".
5. I am also referred to PLD 1975 Lab.
825. The following extract from his judgment would bring clearly the distinction between "void" order and "incorrect" order :- "A void order on the other hand is one which would render the proceedings coram non judice such as the one passed mala fide, without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of law. The precise proposition of law as to when an order is void was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Sawaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies and held as follows :- 'An order can under this section be attacked on three grounds and it is the assumption of the third ground that an exercise of jurisdiction may be illegal or irregular and yet the order passed may not be void and without jurisdiction. By merely showing, therefore, that an order passed was in violation of some provision of law or procedure, the conclusion that the order is a nullity would not follow. It should further be shown that there was such a violation of some statutory provision or principle of natural justice as would render the proceedings coram non judice."
6. A recent authority published by PLD 1984 Pesh. 278 (October Issue) and it also observes "void order was one which could render pro- ceedings coram non judice such as one passed mala fide without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of law."
7. I find that the orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act at Sukkur and Nawabshsh are not void orders but since in appeal the above 8 matters were remanded back to decide on merits, all the Advocates are agreeable to this proposition that the relevant Authority at Nawabshah and Sukkur may decide the matters, but limit of time may be imposed on them for decision. Accordingly these revision petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the Authorities are directed to decide the cases within three months and in the meantime, the amounts deposited in respect of the claim may not be refunded to the Government.