' The present appeal was filed by WAPDA on 4th June, 1983 but it was dismissed on 12th June, 1983 on the ground that deposit certificate was not filed. Accordingly, an application under section 41 (should be order), rule 19, C. P. C. Was moved on 21st June, 1983 for restoration of appeal. This application was also dismissed in default on 25th July, 1983. Accordingly restoration of application under Order XLI, rule 19, C. P. C. Was sought to be restored by another application under section 151, C.P.C. Moved on the same date viz. 25th July, 1983. This application was allowed on 11th August, 1983 because of no objection on behalf of the other side. However, after hearing application under Order XLI, rule 19, C. P. C., my learned predecessor Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo by his order dated 3rd September, 1983 dismissed the application apparently for want of jurisdiction. This order was then assailed in the High Court under Constitutional Petition No. 9-59 of 1983 and his Lordship Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, while setting aside the order of dismissal dated 3rd September, 1983, held that the appellant's application dated 21st June, 1983 would be deemed to be pending and directed this court to decide this application in accordance with law. I have accordingly heard Mr. A. Hameed Khan, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. M. Lshaque Abbasi, counsel for the respondent.
2, The main point which has been urged before me on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Authority had no jurisdiction in law to entertain the application under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, against WAPDA and so the impugned order would be void. His submission is that if the Authority was not competent to hear the claim of the respondent, and if he has allowed the said claim, there will be no time limit for filing the appeal nor the filing of deposit certificate would be condition precedent for filing the appeal. His further submission is that the compliance of an illegal and without jurisdiction order would not be necessary and so if the appellant had not deposited the amount in time, the appeal was competent in this Court. Accordingly, in his view, the appeal should not have been dismissed even in default. Learned counsel also argued that non-deposit of the directed amount was due to the fact that the authorities at Hyderabad had no power to deposit such amount in Court without obtaining necessary sanction from its head office at Lahore.
Accordingly, the delay in making deposit was not wilful and so such a delay has to be ignored and the appeal be restored to file.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before me. I have first to examine if the appellant has made out any ground for restoration of appeal. Evidently the appeal was filed without any deposit certificate on 4th June, 1983. This Court directed the compliance of objections and for production of deposit certificate within 5 days thereof and such direction was duly noted by the Advocate for appellant on 5th June, 1983. However, neither deposit certificate was filed nor objections were complied with within the stipulated time and so the appeal was dismissed on 12th June, 1983. The restoration of appeal was sought on 21st June, 1983 and the application made for this purpose is very important to see whether appellant has made out any ground for restoration.
4. In the penultimate paragraph of this application it has only been averred that the delay in depositing the amount and complying with the objection was unavoidable and beyond the powers of the appellant, which is WAPDA itself. Why it was beyond its powers, has not been disclosed. Even this application is not supported by any affidavit. It is a settled law that for seeking restoration the party is supposed to make out a strong ground and the reasons for absence or for non- compliance must be specifically disclosed. In the instant case, mere saying that the making deposit was not within the power of the appellant would not be sufficient to set aside the dismissal order for non-compliance, particularly when the deposit itself was made on 19th June, 1983 i. e. 2 days, prior to moving the present application for restoration. Non-filing of affidavit in support of the grounds would also be fatal. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the appellant has made out no case for the restoration of the appeal particularly when making deposit within the stipulated time and filing the deposit certificate is condition precedent to the filing of the appeal. This application is accordingly rejected.
5. Even on merits, I do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr. Hameed. Amount directed by the Authority is to be deposited within 30 days of the order and a deposit certificate is to be filed alongwith the appeal and which appeal is to be filed within the prescibed time. There is no power of this Court to extend time for deposit or for filing the deposit certificate in Court. I have repeatedly taken this view that filing of deposit certificate is like filing a decree alongwith the memo A of appeal under Order XLI, rule 1, C. P. C. In a civil appeal if the decree is not presented alongwith the appeal, that appeal would not be maintainele. In the instant case not only the deposit certificate was not filed alongwith the appeal but even the required amount was also not deposited within the prescribed time. This Court has no authority to extend time for deposit. The appeal thus cannot be entertained and is to be dismissed on this score alone.
6. I also do not find any substance is the arguments of Mr. Hameed that the impugned order was passed without any jurisdiction and so the amount was not to be deposited. Whether or not the learned Authority had jurisdiction in the matter was to be decided only after evidence and in such cases it cannot be urged that the impugned order should be considered as without any lawful authority. The matter was decided on merits and to appreciate the submission of the appellant the entire material has to be considered and then the appeal is to be disposed of on merits. To do so, it has to be seen whether the appeal has been presented in accordance with law. Since the appeal has not been filed as required by law because the mandatory direction of deposit was not complied with, the submissions of the appellant in regard to the factual and legal position cannot be examined.