' The above captioned three revision petitions report that the order dated 27-6-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labor Court No, 9, Multan admitting the appeals of the respondent are wrong and improper.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the three revisions, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
3. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act accepted the petitions of the petitioners for the recovery of wages and the said orders were challenged under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act in appeals before the learned lower appellate Court. The said Court admitting the appeals demanded security from the respondent. It has been argued that the amounts have not been deposited nor any certificates of the deposit of the same were produced along with A the appeals, therefore, according to the first proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, the appeals did not lie and could not be entertained and admitted for regular hearing. Since no decision has been recorded on this point, nor this point has been raised before the learned lower appellate Court, there was no occasion for the petitioners for coming in revision. If the learned lower appellate Court had held that the production of certificates of deposit of amount was not necessary, of course, the petitioners would have a cause to come in revision. The petitioners may apply to the learned lower appellate Court for the rejection of appeals on the ground that they have been brought without certificates from the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act about the deposit of the amounts and if on such applications orders are passed which are prejudicial to the petitioners, then of course they may come in revision. In these circumstances I decline to exercise suo motu provisional powers and dismiss the revisions in limine.