' The order dated 15th May, 1982 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the order dated 27th November, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan in its appellate jurisdiction, are informed to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The respondent who was an employee of the petitioners resigned from service. His resignation was accepted. He, thereafter, applied for reinstatement. The appointing authority holding that the resignation was not voluntary reinstated the respondent without back benefits. The respondent applied for arrears but was refused finally on 25th June, 1976. He, therefore, brought a petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to the Authority which accepted the same and the appeal before the learned Labour Court failed.
3. It has been argued that the petition being beyond three years was time-barred. The contention is without force. Dues were finally refused by the petitioners on 25th June, 1976. The petition under section 15 was lodged on 17th March, 1977, so was not time-barred.
4. It has been argued that the respondent had in his statement made before the Authority said that be had in the departmental appeal prayed for reinstatement without back benefits, so the Authority wrongly allowed the petition. No doubt, it is so recorded in the statement made by the respondent before the Authority but copy of departmental appeal is not on the record. The employer while ordering reinstatement of the respondent did not say that the respondent had not claimed back benefits. Since in spite of the fact that in the statement of the respondent it is recorded that he had not claimed back benefits in the departmental appeal, the Authority allowed the benefits, the possibility cannot be excluded that in his statement some words such as 'without' may have been missed. Anyhow, since while ordering the reinstatement of the respondent, the employer said in the order that the resignation was not voluntary, the respondent was compelled to remain out of service, so he was entitled to back benefits.
5. As a result, the revision having no force is rejected.
Revision rejected.