DECISION ' I propose to dispose of all the aforementioned 8 suo motu Revision Applications by this single order as points of fact and law involved in all the applications are same or similar.
' This is Revision Application against the order of learned Labour Court in Appeal, dated 30-9-1990, whereby the order of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, dated 7-2-1990, was set aside on the ground that the claim of the applicant was time-barred.
2. I have heard the applicant in person and Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Durrani, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The applicant claimed a petty amount of Rs,506.87 on account of Supplementary Bill not paid to him. He had been writing various letters to the Railway Authorities but to no effect and, therefore, he filed application before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, on 5-4-1989, though he was retired on 30-10-1979.
4. Under first proviso to subsection (2) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, the application was to be presented within three years from the date on which deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which payment of wages was due to be made, as the case may be. The second proviso to this subsection provides that any application may be admitted after the said period of three years, when the applicant satisfies the Authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. It may be pointed that the provisions of Limitation Act including section 5 of the Limitation Act have not been made specifically applicable to the proceedings under the Payment of Wages Act but it is left to the discretion and satisfaction of the Authority to admit the matter after the period of limitation, if the Authority is satisfied, that the applicant has sufficient cause for not making application within such period.
5. The applicant is an old man of 72 years. He had retired at the age of sixty years. He had moved the Railway Authorities immediately for the payment of arrears before and after retirement, but Railway Authorities admittedly did not reply to his request either rejecting or allowing his request.
Under section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act it is the responsibility of the employer viz. Railway Authorities to pay all the wages to the person employed by them. Apparently in the instant case the Railway Authorities had failed to discharge the responsibility enjoined upon them under section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the decision of learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act to admitting the time-barred application does not look unjustified or improper as even the amount involved was petty amount of Rs,506.87.
6. The only ground on which the order of the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, was set aside by the learned Labour Court, acting as Appellate Court, was the limitation. I have already held that the exercise of his discretion under second proviso to subsection (2) of section 15 by the learned Authority was neither unjustified nor improper as such the order of the learned Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
7. The applicant in his original claim had claimed Rs,506.87. The learned' Authority, however, granted him twice this claim i,e, Rs,1,113.74 in exercise of its power under subsection (3) of section 15 under which Authority could, altogether with payment of the amount deducted award compensation not exceeding ten times the amount deducted. The award of 'additional compensation' does not appear to be proper under the circumstances of the case, as the applicant had also been guilty of contributory negligence in approaching the Authority after such a long period. I, therefore, revise the order of the learned Labour Court and direct that 'additional compensation' awarded by the Authority be set aside and the applicant be awarded Rs,506.87 as claimed by him alongwith Rs,100 as cost awarded by Authority.