This is a revision reporting that the order dated 27-1-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan, is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The respondent is a Gateman at level cross situated in between Railway Station Dad Fatehana & Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. Claiming that he is az ontinuous worker he brought an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for claiming overtime on account of giving 12 hours continuous duty. The petition was accepted and the appeal brought by the petitioner failed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to decide whether the respondent was a continuous worker or an intermittent worker. It has also been argued that this Tribunal in a case has held that Authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no such jurisdiction. No doubt I have in some cases held that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to declare whether a Gateman is a continuous worker or an intermittent worker, but such a point is decided according to the pleadings of the parties. In the present case no such objection was taken. Even before the learned lower Court no such point was raised. Under section 38(3)(a) suo motu revisional powers have been given to this Tribunal and the employer or an employee can only give an information to this Tribunal about the orders which they want to challenge, but no revision as of right can be brought by any of the parties. Since the question of jurisdiction was not raised, the petitioner could challenge the decisions of the learned Courts below on the point of jurisdiction if they had any right of revision. Number of trains have increased therefore, it is difficult to say whether the Gateman who in the past was intermittent workman continues as such. Due to increase in the number of passenger trains and goods trains, the trains pass with gaps of small time, therefore, it is difficult to say whether the orders of the learned Courts below whereby overtime has been allowed to the respondent is not justified. This being so I am not inclined to exercise suo motu revisional powers.
4. As a result the revision is dismissed.