' The decision dated 14th May, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants was disallowed as being time-barred as well as on merit.
2. Recreation allowance was allowed to Railway employees in 1977. The appellants belong to the running staff. They claimed the said allowance but were disallowed vide letter dated 7th February, 1977. Writ Petition No, 4141 of 1978 was accepted and it was held that the members of the running staff availing of recreation leave were entitled to the said allowance including Mb 55% running allowance. The appellants were not allowed 55% running allowance as recreation allowance, so they moved the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act but the petition was dismissed for the reason that the persons seeking remedy were getting pay more than Rs, 1,000, therefore, the Authority had no jurisdiction. The decision is dated 9th January, 1983. Grievance notice is dated 10th February, 1983.
3. It has been argued without force by the learned representative of the appellants that the period spent in the wrong forum is to be excluded. If a party with bona fide intention litigates in a wrong forum, of course the period spent there can be ignored, but it has not been shown in the present case that under any bona fide mistake the petition under section 15 was made. Needless to say that before going to a forum it is the duty of everyone to consider if that forum is competent or not.
The appellant were aware of the fact that the pay was more than Rs, 1,000. Section 1 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act provides that only those persons whose pay is less than Rs, 1,000 can apply.
The learned lower Court has rightly held that ignorance of enacted law is no excuse. This is not the case of the appellants that their counsel gave them wrong advice nor any affidavit any lawyer to this effect has been produced. Again the appellants coati maciously pursued the case before the Authority even after the objection of jurisdiction was taken up by the respondent in the written statement. If the appellants were labouring under any mistake of law they should hay consulted some other lawyer after they found the objection of jurisdiction in the written statement and should have withdrawn the petition. They instead, fought the case upto the last. The provisions of section 25-A in regard to limitation cannot be overlooked for insufficient grounds. The petition for condonation of delay was thus rightly disallowed.
4. So far as merits are concerned I cannot agree with the learned lower Court. The provision of recreation allowance was made as back as in 1977. The High Court in writ petition interpretted the provision to mean that members of the running staff availing of recreation leave were entitled to the recreation allowannce and that 55% running allowance was also to be paid by way of recreation allowance. Passing of presidential order after the decision of the writ petition was not necessary. So, recreation allowance was payable not from the date of the presidential order of 1983 but right from the date the provision of such an allowance was made.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
1985 PLC 706 [Labour Appellate Tribunal A J & K] {{URDU TEXT}}