1. AWARD In this application, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant seeks re-instatement in service and payment of his legal dues. The case of the applicant is that he had m$ved an application under Standing Order 18 (Application No. 77 of 1969), in the Second West Pakistan Industrial Court at Karachi, for re-instatement in service with full back benefits. The application was allowed by an order, dated 27th April, 1970. The applicant approached the respondents for compliance with the order of the Court, but to no effect. He addressed to them letters, dated 30th June 1970 and 11th March 1971, but received no reply. He also sent letter to the Director, Labour Welfare, dated 6th July 1971, but met with no success.
2. Consequently, he moved the present application, on 25th October 1971, for the enforcement of the order of the Court, dated 27th April 1970. The respondents state that, in compliance with the order of the Court, dated 27th April 1970, they paid a sum of Rs. 7,028 through Cheque No. 026188, dated lst July 1970, drawn on the Standard Bank, Karachi, which the applicant accepted in full and final settlement of all his claims and executed a receipt in presence of witnesses. The applicant also submitted his resignation from service with eff&t from lst July 1970. However, the applicant made an application to Authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad for the payment of dues which had already been paid to him. In response to the notice of that application the respondents appeared before the said Authority. The latter, after recording evidence of both parties and hearing arguments of their Representatives, held that the payment of dues had actually been made to the applicant and, consequently, rejected the application of the applicant by an order, dated 9th October 1971. Therefore, according to the respondents, the present application is barred by the principle of res judicata. They further plead that this Court has no jurisdiction, as the relief of payment of wages falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. During the proceedings, the applicant examined himself. He, however, denied that he had received any amount by way of a Cheque from the respondents, or that He had executed a receipt acknowledging the payment of that amount. He also denied that he had tendered resignation from service, on lst July 1970. When he was confronted with these documents from the file of the case before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, which had been summoned at the request of the respondents, he denied that these documents bore his thumb-impression. The respondents examined Nausher Nicolwala, the Attorney of the respondents. From the admissions, he has made in the cross-examination, considerable doubt is created with respect to the alleged payment to the applicant. He states that, ordinarily the payments are made by Shujatullah, the Works Manager at Gharo, but in the case of the applicant, the payment was made through one Jamil Ahmad. He admits that Jamil Ahmad had no official designation in the respondent- Company, but payment was made to the applicant through him because he (Jamil Ahmad) was handling the case of the applicant This witness can not say if Jamil Ahmad actually made the payment to the applicant, or if the payment was even made in presence of the. Manager at Gharo, but Jamil Ahmad brought the receipt and the resignation which he said were signed by the applicant. Jami! Ahmad is said to have died. This witness also admits that the two letters, dated 30th June 1970 and 11th March 1971, were received by the respondents, but he cannot say if replies were made to the applicant. Now, if the payment of his dues had actually been made to the applicant, it cannot be understood as to why he should have kept on addressing letters to the respondents, demanding the payment of wages, and why the respondent should have kept silent, without informing him that the dues had already been paid to him. It also cannot be understood as to why the applicant should have applied to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act in that case. However, suspicious though the alleged payment of dues and resignation of the applicant appears from the evidence in this Court, the present application is clearly barred in view of the decision of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The applicant admits that he had made an application to the Director of Labour, on 6th July 1971, which is at page 39 of the file of the Case No 269/71 under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. It appears that application was sent to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for disposal. The applicant also admits that he had received notice from that Authority, that he had filed a rejoinder, and his statement was recorded.
3. He further aJQmits that Mr. Baluch was appearing as his representative in those proceedings. Mr. Baluch is the applicant's representative in the present proceedings as well. The applicant, however, states that he had no intimation regarding the decision of that case nor was any communicated to him by his Representative. The lecord of the case before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act shows that both parties had examined their evidence at length and produced the relevant documents. The Authority, in an elaborate decision running into 7 pages, arrived at the conclusion that the payment of dues had been made to the applicant till the date he had submitted his resignation, and consequently rejected the application by order, dated 9th October 1971. That the Authority had jurisdiction in the matter cannot be denied, because the wages of the applicant were admittedly R8. 200 per month. Therefore, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the present proceedings having already beeri 'adjudicated and decided on merits by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the present application is undoubtedly barred by the principle of res judicata. Consequently, the application is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.