This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 30-7-1977, passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby he set aside the order dated 1-12-1976, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, whereby the petitioners were allowed overtime from 20-10-1972 to 29-10-1974 under the provisions of Factories (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1972, promulgated on 10-10-1972.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners were employed in the Stores Manufactory, Pakistan Railways General Stores, Mughalpura, Lahore, as skilled workers. They worked overtime from 21-10- 1972 to 15-1-1973 and were paid the overtime wages at the rate of single ordinary pay. They filed petitions before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act claiming that they were entitled to overtime at the rate of twice their ordinary rate of pay with three times compensation. The applications of the petitioners were accepted by the Authority vide order dated 1-12-1976. The District Controller of Stores, Pakistan Railways, Mughalpura Lahore, respondent No. 3 herein, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore. The appeal was accepted on the ground that the Factories Act was not applicable to the respondent's Establishment before 30-10-1974 prior to registration of the Factory, in that, the provisions of the Factories Act were applicable when the notification under section 5 of the Factories Act, 1934, was issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order was ex facie without lawful authority, in that, the appeal of respondent No. 3 was barred by time and the plea of limitation was duly raised before the Labour Court but the same was not adverted to.
4. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners finds support from the case of Ahsan Ali and others v. District Judge and others PLD 1969 SC 167, wherein it was held:- "Whether the plea of limitation was raised or not, it was the duty of the Settlement Court to notice the point of limitation. A waiver of the question of limitation is not permissible even where the period of limitation is prescribed by a special or a local law. Mere disposal of the appeal on merits is not sufficient to lead to the inference that the delay must have been condoned. There must be something in the order or judgment itself to show that the Court concerned was conscious of the fact that the proceeding was out of time and had applied its mind to the question of limitation before dealing with the proceeding on merits."
5. In the instant case, a bare reading of the impugned order would show that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was neither conscious of the fact that the appeal was time-barred nor he applied his mind to the question of limitation before deciding the case on merits and, therefore, on this short ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine other points.
6. Ordinarily, I would have remanded the case for disposal of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 but a considerable period has since elapsed and payment of overtime under the order of the Authority has already been made to the petitioners and some of them have retired, it will not be in the interest of justice to remit the case for further proceedings at this belated stage.
In view of the above, the impugned order is declared as without lawful authority. The writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.