MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the order dated 6.12.1989 Of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the notice dated 10.6.1990 issued by it.
2. Sardar Masih, Husband of respondent No.2, was an employee of the petitioner, who resigned on 16.2.1982. After his death, Mst.Levaizan, respondent No.2 herein, filed an application for recovery of gratuity, compuslory group insurance, pay in lieu of earned leave and family pension amounting to Rs.37,300/- which was alleged to be payable to her husband. The application was contested by the petitioner which objected to the maintainability of the application and assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No.1. However, as no heed was being paid to these objections by respondent No.1 who was proceeding further with the matter, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition (W.P.2514/89) in this Court which came up for hearing before my learned brother Zia Mahmood Mirza, J. Who was pleased to issue preadmission notice to the respondents and stayed the proceedings pending before respondent No.1.
The grievance of the petitioner, in the present petition is that notwithstanding the stay order issued by this Court, respondent No.1 proceeded to accept the application filed by respondent No.2 ex parte against the petitioner on 6.12.1989. Later on, a notice dated 10.6.1990, was issued by respondent No.1 requiring the petitioner to pay the amount.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, submitted that the stay order was never brought to the notice or served upon respondent No.1 and further that the impugned order is based upon a statement made by the Secretary of the petitioner conceding the claim of respondent No.2.
It is not disputed and even otherwise borne out from the record that the petitioner had challenged the proceedings pending before respondent No.1 by filing the constitutional petition (W.P.25I4/89) in this Court which came up for hearing before this Court on 24.5,1989 and it was directed that pre- admission notice be issued to respondent No.2 for 14.6.1989. In the meantime, the proceedings before the respondeiit-Authority were stayed-. On 14.6.1989 despite notice sent to respondent No.2, she did not enter appearance. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and is still pending disposal. As this Court on 24.5.1989 had directed that the proceedings before respondent No.1 shall remain stayed and that order had neither been recalled nor vacated, respondent No.1 could not have proceeded further in the matter. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the stay order was never brought to the notice of respondent No.1, even if correct, is of no consequence as it is well settled that the stay order issued by a Court operates from the moment it is passed unlike temporary injunctions which take effect from the service of the order. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Karam Ali and others Vs. Raia and others (P.L.D.
1949 Lah.100). In this view of the matter, all proceedings taken by respondent No.2 after 24th May, 1989 are coram non judice and nullity in the eye of law and cannot be sustained.
As a result of what has been said above, this petition is accepted, the impugned and the notice are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the application filed-by respondent No.2 shall be deemed to be still pending before respondent No.1 and shall be taken up for final hearing after the decision of this Court in W.P.No.2514/89. The office is directed to fix that writ petition for hearing in the month of January, 1991.
No order as to costs.