' The revisions captioned above report that the order dated 17-4-1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. Mr. Shakir Habib (hereinafter described as the petitioner) went to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for claiming wages for the period as per detailed in the schedule appended to the petition given under section 15(2). The case of the respondent was that after returning from leave he reported for duty at Lahore but was directed to submit duty report at Rawalpindi. He went there but they refused to take him on duty and directed him to report at Lahore. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dismissed the petition on the ground that the Payment of Wages Act was not applicable and that even if it be held that it was applicable, the Authority had no territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner went in appeal against the said order and the learned lower Appellate Court upholding the view of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act sent back the case directing that the petition be returned to the petitioner. The Punjab Small Industries Corporation (hereinafter called as the respondent) has also challenged the order of the learned lower Appellate Court in a separate revision on the ground that the order of return of the petition is wrong and that the Authority was justified in dismissing the petition. As both the revisions challenge the same order, passed by the learned lower appellate Court they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. After the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dismissed the petition of the petitioner, he was dismissed by the respondent for remaining A absent. The period of absence is the same for which the petitioner claimed wages under section 15(2). Since the petitioner has been treated as absent, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has ceased to have jurisdiction even if it be said if the dismissal had not been passed it would have jurisdiction. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act cannot set aside the order of dismissal and cannot hold that the petitioner did not remain absent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal separately in a petition brought under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This was the proper remedy which the petitioner has sought. If he succeeds in that petition he then can go to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for claiming wages for the period for which the respondent has treated him absent.
3. The order of the learned lower appellate Court to the extent that his petition should have been returned and could not be dismissed is also correct. Where a functionary has no jurisdiction it can neither accept nor reject a case brought to it, and in such circumstances the proper order to be passed is to return the petition for presentation to the proper forum.
' As a result the revisions fail and are rejected.
Petitions rejected.