MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.- Respondent No. 2, an employee of (he Pakistan Railways, was removed from service on 31.10.1953.
He,filed civil slilty assailing order of his removal from service which was decreed in his favour on 3.2.1955. He was re-instated in service. He claimed his wages for the period 31.10.1953 to 3.2.1955 by filing petition under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Authority appointed under the afore-mentioned enactment. He was paid wages for the afore-said period but no compensation for the deduction/with-holding of the wages for the afore-said period was allowed.
Thereafter he preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Labour Court vide order dated 11.4.1975 and he was allowed two times compensation of the wages with-held.The order of the Labour Court dated 11.7.1975 awarding Rs. 5,784/36 as compensation to respondent No. 2 is subject of dispute in this Constitutional petition filed on 26.8.1975 by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and another.
2. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is not certain as to whether intimation about the fixation of this case after over sixteen years has reached him or whether he is alive or not as admittedly he retired from service in the year 1968.
3. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Labour Court could not award compensation for more than Rs. 10/-when payment of wages was delayed. In the instant case the wages were not deducted rather payment whereof was delayed. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioners has substance as in case of delayed payment of wages compensation awardable is Rs. 10/-only but I cannot lose signt of the fact that the dispute for payment of wages pertained to period 31.10.1953 to 2.5.1955 and the contesting respondent had to institute a suit, obtain a decree, approach the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act and prefer appeal before the Labour Court for realisation of the wages. The question arises as to whether in the circumstances of the instant case should this Court in extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners who removed the respondent from service, which order was held illegal by a competent Court of law and also withheld the payment of wages to the employee unjustifiably, to issue writ for refund to Rs. 5,784.36 which was paid to respondent No. 2 over sixteen years ago. In my opinion, it will not advance the cause of justice therefore, do not feel inclined at this stage, in the circumstances of this case, to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and dispose of this petition with no order as costs.