1. Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner to get the impugned orders dated 18-4-1992 passed by the trial Court i.e. The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sukkur and the impugned order dated 22-12-1992 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur.
2. Briefly stated the back ground of the present litigation is that respondent No. 1 Mazhar Hussain was employee of Mechanical Division (G.B.) under Executive Engineer, Government of Sindh. On retirement some dispute arose as to the payment of retirement benefits of the respondent. The respondent approached the Court of Commissioner Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, who passed a decree for Rs.16,928 in favour of the respondent.
3. Petitioner preferred appeal before the Sindh Labour Court No. VII who by the impugned order dated 22-12-1992 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit the decretal amount as required under provision to sub-clause (a) (1) of section 17 of Payment of Wages Act. Consequently the present Constitutional petition was filed, Proviso to sub-clause (a) (1) of section 17 of Payment of Wages Act reads as under: " 17.Appeal.--(1) An appeal against a direction made under sub-clause (3) or subsection (4) of section 15 may be preferred within thirty days of the date on which the direction was made before the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII) of 1969) within whose jurisdiction the cause of action to which the appeal relates arose.
(a) by the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages under section 3, if the total sum directed to be paid by way of wages and compensation exceeds three hundred rupees: Provided that no appeal under this clause shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with the authority the amount payable under the direction appealed against, Mr. Zawar Hussain Jaffri learned AA.-G. Submitted that abovementioned provision of law was not of mandatory nature. That due to oversight the decretal amount could not be deposited in the Labour Court. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jaffri further contended that it was the duty of the Labour Court not to accept the appeal at the time when it was presented before it. He submitted that since the Labour Court had accepted the appeal without the payment of the decretal amount and it was pending before that Court for considerable time, hence at a later stage the same was not to be dismissed for non-compliance of the aforementioned provision of law but the Labour Court should have afforded opportunity to the petitioner to deposit decretal amount before the final hearing of the appeal.
4. On the other hand, Shaikh Amanullah learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was not attracted, as the Labour Court had passed the impugned order strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 17(a)(1) of Payment of Wages Act. He placed reliance on 1987 PLC 454 whereby it was held that the aforesaid provisions were mandatory in nature and even if the decretal amount was deposited by cheque, it was not deposited as per requirement of law.
5. It is well-settled law that where a thing is to be done in a particular manner as required by statute, then the same must be done in that way or not at all.
6. I, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Constitutional petition, is therefore, stands dismissed.