DECISION ' This is a Revision Application against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 17-9-1989. The R & Ps of the case was called by this Tribunal in exercise of its suo ,motu revisional power under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969, to consider the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order.
2. I have heard Mr. Wahid Bux, learned representative for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Shafi, learned Advocate for the respondents.
3. The applicant, who is workman, had filed a claim with regard to the payment of gratuity and notice pay which was allowed to him by the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. On appeal the learned Labour Court remanded the case back for retrial to the learned Authority on the ground that the respondent had not been given proper opportunity to defend the case.
4. The main contention of the learned representative for the applicant is that the certificate as required by the proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act had not been filed alongwith the memo of appeal and as such appeal was not maintainable. On perusal of the record of the learned Labour Court it appears that the appeal was kept under objection and the respondent was directed to produce certificate . The 'noting' on the 'Memo of Appeal' shows that he did produce the certificate on 30-3-1989 whereafter the appeal was admitted.
5. Admittedly the cheque for the directed amount was given to the Authority on 25-3-1989 and it was encashed on 28-3-1989, whereafter the appeal was admitted. The impugned order was passed by the learned Authority on 25-2-1989 and application for copy was made on 28-2-1989.
The copies were prepared and delivered on 11-3-1989. This period of elevan days which was taken by the respondent to obtain the copy would have to be added to the period of thirty days of appeal provided under section 17 of the said Act. Thus, the appeal could have been presented upto 5-4- 1989. Before that time the respondent had deposited the amount and produced the certificate. As pointed out above the certificate was produced on 30-3-1989 and the cheque was encashed on 28-3-1989. As such it cannot be said that there has been non-compliance of the proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. Mr. Wahid Bux, learned representative for the applicant, however, contends that in the order, the learned Authority had directed the respondent to deposit the amount within thirty days but the amount had been deposited after thirty days in violation of the order of the Authority. The law does not provide any consequence for such violation. As pointed out, there has been no violation of the proviso to section 17 and, therefore, appeal cannot be said to be not maintainable.
6. Admittedly the respondent did not examine any witness in the lower Court and his application for allowing him to lead evidence was rejected. The learned Labour Court has given cogent reasons for remanding the case back for retrial. I see no ground which calls for any interference by this Tribunal in exercise of this Tribunal's suo motu powers.
7. The Revision Application is dismissed.