' This revision arises from the order dated 16-10-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore whereby the appeal of the respondent brought against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was accepted and the order of the said Authority was set aside.
2. The case of the petitioners in short is that they claimed pay in NPS-11 with effect from 1-5-1974, but the respondent allowed them the said scale from 1-12-1976 and did not admit their entitlement for the period prior to 1-12-1976. Since the claim of the petitioners was not accepted, it was not a case of delayed or deducted wages simplicitor. Since the very claim of the petitioners from 1-12- 1976 back to 30-4-1974 was contested, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction. Since the question of entitlement of the petitioners to NPS-11 from May, 1974 had, not been decided by the railway, the petitioners could not go to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the recovery of the wages, because neither the wages had been delayed, nor had been deducted, but rather the question of entitlement either had been decided against them or had not till then been decided. The petitioners were claiming the scale from May, 1974 on the ground that their services had been merged with other employees who were diploma-holders, but this argument was not being accepted by the. Railway. First of all the question of entitlement should have been got decided by the Railway first and it had been decided against them, then they could challenge it before some other forum competent to redress the wrong and if the decision had been in favour of the petitioners and still the wages were either deducted or delayed, only then they could move the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the appeal brought by the respondent in the lower appellate court was barred by time by 108 days and no application for condonation of delay was made. The copy of the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act shows that the Authority decided the case on 28-6-1981, application for copy was made on 5-7-1981, copy was prepared on 15-7-1981 and the same was delivered on 21-9-1981. The date of attestation of the copy as true copy is also 21-9-1981. The copy could be ready for delivery only after it had been compared and found correct and certified as true copy and not before that. So, the date of preparation of the copy is wrongly given in the seal as 15-7-1981. The copy was ready for delivery on 21-9-1981 and from the said date the appeal made to the learned lower court was not time-barred.
As the appeal was not time-barred, no question of condonation of delay could arise.
4. As a result of the observations made above. I do not find any force in the revision, which is dismissed in limine.
Revision .