The respondents were serving in various capacities with the petitioners. They filed application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority. It was pleaded that during the course of employment they acquired qualification of B.A. From the University of the Punjab and in view of the provisions of the Incentive Scheme, duly approved by the President of Pakistan they were entitled to four advance increments.
This application was resisted by the petitioners but was granted by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority vide order dated 13-4-1981. The petitioners assailed this order through an appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No. II, Lahore. The appeal was accepted vide order dated 13-4-1983. The respondents Nos.2 to 5 impugned this order through revision petition before respondent No.1 who accepted the same vide order dated 19-3-1984.
2. The petitioners have now challenged this order through this constitutional petition. The petition was admitted to regular hearing. Notices were issued to the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 who appeared and contested the petition while respondent No. 1 did not appear in spite of service and he was proceeded ex parte.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, argued that the claim of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 was not covered by section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 because the application is only competent when the claim is for deduction from wage or delay in payment of wages whereas in the present case, the petitioner's stand was that the respondents Nos.2 to 5 employees are not entitled to the advance increments. It is added that in any case, neither respondent No. 1 had jurisdiction nor revision was competent against the order passed in appeal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that the petition was competent but the appeal of the petitioners before the Punjab Labour Court No. II was barred by limitation. Reliance in this behalf is placed on Pakistan through Chairman, Pakistan Railway Board, Lahore v. Maqsood Ali (1981 PLC (Lah.) 307).
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. I would take up the question of competency of the revision petition before respondent No. 1 first. The application was moved under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The appeal with the Labour Court was competent under section 17 of Payment of Wages Act. There is no provision in the Payment of Wages Act for the revision and it is clear that originally the appeal lay to the District Court before the commencement of Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. The same has now been amended so as to give the appellate power to the Labour Court. This is not all but all appeals pending before the District Court under the Payment of Wages Act stood transferred and were to be disposed of by the Punjab Labour Court.
In this way, the Labour Court is persona designata and in that capacity does not function under I.R.O., 1969. Therefore, it is not subordinate to Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment to the orders passed in this capacity. Therefore, the order of respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction, this fact alone is sufficient to set aside order of respondent No. 1.
5. The upshot of this discussion is that the writ petition is accepted. The result is that the impugned order dated 19-3-1984 is set aside with no order as to costs.