This is a revision reporting that the order dated 10-4-1988 recorded by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and one dated 12-9-1988 recorded by the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala, are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. The respondent has not appeared in spite of the fact that a notice was sent to him by registered post. Since the notice sent to the respondent by registered post, has not been received back unserved, the presumption therefore is that it has been received by him. The respondent, therefore, has been proceeded against ex parte.
2. The respondent brought an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act in the Court of learned Authority under the said Act for recovery of Rs,25,400. The learned Courts below have allowed wages for the period from 10-4-1980 to 16-6-1982 and have disallowed the claim for the period prior to that on the ground that it was time-barred. The respondent was removed from service and by the order of the Court was directed to be reinstated accepting the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. With regard to back benefits, it was observed that it would depend upon the result of fresh enquiry. The case of the petitioner is that fresh enquiry was started but the respondent did not participate in it, therefore, it could not be completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the respondent was at fault in not getting the enquiry completed, he is not entitled to the wages for the period from 10-4-1980 to 16-6-1982. On the face of it, the argument has no force. Even if it be admitted that the respondent did not join the enquiry and was served with an enquiry notice, yet it was the duty of the petitioner to complete the enquiry ex parte and to decide the case, according to the material brought on the record. In these circumstances, the respondent was entitled to hack benefits for the period he had remained under the order of removal from service. The learned Courts below thus have rightly allowed wages to the respondent for the period from 10-4-1980 to 16-6-1982.
3. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed ex parte.