' This is a revision reporting that the order dated 10-5-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan in his appellate jurisdiction under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is against law. Vide the impugned order the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as time-barred holding that section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable.
2. The petitioner had applied under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for an alleged deduction of wages for the period from 23-4-1984 to 30-9-1985, with ten times compensation. The petition was dismissed on the ground that the wages exceeded Rs,1,000 so the Authority had no jurisdiction. Admittedly, the appeal was time-barred by three days. It has been argued that as the order of the Authority was void, no question of limitation for challenging in appeal could arise.
Firstly, the order of the Authority was not void as it was not without jurisdiction. The Authority had to decide whether it had or not jurisdiction. If the finding was erroneous,' it does not mean that it was void. Secondly, even void order is to be challenged when it is enforced and period of limitation starts from the date it is enforced. In the present case the petitioner had to get the order of the Authority set aside and the case remanded for decision on merits, so he could not ignore it. In the circumstances, the period of limitation started running from the date of the order. After excluding the days spent in getting copy, the appeal was time-barred by three days. Section 5 of the Limitation Act says it would apply if it has been made applicable by an enactment. There is no provision in section 17 or any other section of the Payment of Wages Act that section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the appeals brought under the said section. So the learned lower appellate Court has rightly found that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. Since the appeal was time-barred and the Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay, it was rightly dismissed as time-barred.
3. As a result, the revision fails and is consequently dismissed.