' In the revision captioned above the order, dated 4-1-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan has been challenged, reporting that the same is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare brought a claim of deducted wages of the workers before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which was decreed ex parte. An application for setting aside ex parte decree was moved by the respondent before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, but that petition was disallowed. The respondent appealed to the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan challenging the decision by which ex parte decree was passed and the order by which application for setting aside ex parte decision had been dismissed. The learned appellate Court has vide the impugned order, dated 4- 1-1987 set aside the order, dated 7-4-1986 of the learned Authority on the ground that without inviting reply to the petition and without affording opportunity of evidence the petition could not be accepted. So far as order, dated 1-2-1986 is concerned whereby the ex parte decision was awarded, the learned lower Court has not given any decision. It has been observed that the question of maintainability of the said order will be assessed by the Authority itself meaning thereby that if it is proved that notice was not served upon the respondent, the order will be set aside and the case will be decided afresh. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal against the order, dated 1-2-1986 was time-barred. Since the learned Appellate Court has not touched the order, dated 1-2-1986 in the impugned judgment, it is unnecessary to express any finding on the point whether the appeal brought against the said order was or was not time-barred.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the appeal against the order, dated 7-4-1986 is concerned it did not lie as there is no provision in section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act to appeal against an order whereby an application for setting aside the ex parte decision has been rejected. The learned counsel has said that the order of refusal to set aside ex parte decision merged in the main decision whereby the ex parte decision was passed, therefore, the appeal was competent. The argument is not convincing. Under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act appeal lies against a direction made under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 15. No doubt, direction to pay the deducted wages was made in the order, dated 1-2-1986, but no such direction was issued nor any such direction was refused while deciding the application for setting aside the ex parte decision. Direction has already been issued under section 15 of Payment of Wages Act while passing ex parte decision and the said direction was sought to be set aside on the ground that it was passed without service of notice upon the employer. There is no provision either in the Payment of Wages Act or Payment of Wages Procedure Rules that a petition brought under section 15 too can be heard ex parte and an ex parte order can be opposed. Likewise there is no provision if such an ex parte decision can be got set aside by the party against whom the direction has been issued. Where the party who has brought an application under section 15 fails to appear, the Authority has no alternative but to hear it ex parte and thus an ex parte order cannot be said to be illegal. Under the same powers under which the Authority decides the petition ex parte, it has jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order or to refuse to do so. As A there is no provision of appeal against an order whereby an ex parte decision has been refused to be set aside thus the appeal brought to the learned lower Court was not competent.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the revision is not competent as the learned appellate Court did not act as a Labour Court under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1%9 but heard the appeal under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act and there is no provision of revision in the said act. This is true that the provision of appeal is made in section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act and there is no direct provision the Industrial Relations Ordinance authorizing the Labour Courts to hear appeals against the orders passed under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, but by virtue of section 35(5(d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance Labour Courts can hear the appeals brought under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act by powers given under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as well. Clause (d) reads as under: "exercise and perform such other powers and functions as are or may be conferred upon or assigned to it by or under this Ordinance (or any other law)."
' Before the addition of the words "or any other law" in clause (d) no doubt, Labour Courts could hear the appeals only by the authority given to them by section 17 but after the assertion of the said words they hear appeals not only under the authority given to them by section 17 but also under the authority given to them by clause (d) of subsection (5) of section 35. Since this Court has suo motu provisional powers to revise the orders passed by the Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, therefore, the revision lies against the order passed under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act read with section 35(5)(d), I.R.O.
5. Since no appeal lay under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act against an order whereby the application for setting aside ex parte decision was rejected by the Authority, the remand order passed by the learned appellate Court is without any authority and is not sustainable.
6. As a result the revision is accepted and the impugned order of remand issued by the learned lower Court is set aside.