' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---Respondent No,4 an employee of the Pakistan Railways, Multan filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for recovery of overtime dues. The authority under the said Act accepted the application on 19-3-1976 and allowed a sum of Rs,50,252.25 as overtime wages. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No,4, Multan and in compliance of the requirements of section 17 of the said Act submitted a cross- cheque, dated 19-10-1976 for the decretal amount. Respondent No,4 objected to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that proviso to section 17(1)(a) of the said Act having not been complied with the appeal was not maintainable. The objection was overruled and was held by the respondent No,3 Punjab Labour Court No,4, Multan that the requirement of law stood complied with by payment of the decretaf amount through cross-cheque. Respondent No,4 took up the matter to respondent No,1 Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore against the above interim order whereby his objection was overruled. Respondent No,1 Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore on 26-2- 1978 accepted the objection and held that the appeal before respondent No,3 Punjab Labour Court No,4. Multan was not competent. This has brought the petitioner in Constitutional petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The respondents being absent are proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits and we will agree that the approach adopted by the respondent No,1 Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is too narrow and pedantic. The proviso to section 17(1)(a) of the said Act does not contemplate the deposit of the decretal amount in cash.
The view of the Tribunal that a cheque was not an "amount" mentioned in the proviso is not correct interoperation of the provisions nor in fact it reflects the correct factual situation. In the case in hand the view adopted was otherwise wrong inasmuch as the authority on 17-2-1977 had issued a certificate to the effect that the aforesaid amount had been credited to the account. The objection made by the respondents absolutely lost its significance after the issuance of said certificate that the amounts had been credited to the account. It is well-settled that a right of appeal cannot be taken away on far-fetched technicalities nor a party can be shut out on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. It is correct that deposit of the decretal amount is a condition precedent for filing of the appeal. However, a cross-cheque issued for that purpose cannot be thrown away on taking the view that it could not be taken to be the "amount" payable under the direction appealed against.
All the moreso when the cross-cheque was issued by the National Institution like Pakistan Railways.
It will further be noted that if the amount shown by a cross-cheque is credited to the account before the expiry of limitation prescribed for appeal the objection will totally be unrealistic and illegal. In the present case, it was never claimed that the amount was not credited to the account within the prescribed limitation. Secondly by the time the objection was raised the amount already stood credited to the account and, therefore, was too technical to defeat the right of appeal of the petitioner department.
5. It is also not clear if the Tribunal exercised the alleged revisional power with reference to a provision contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance or the aforesaid Wages Act of 1936. The admission note recorded on 21-3-1978 reflects the contention made by the petitioner. However, since during arguments before us, no argument on this issue having been addressed, we will refrain from making any observation in that context.
6. In view of the discussion made in the penultimate para. The impugned order of respondent No,1 is set aside. Resultantly, the interim order of the respondent No,3. Punjab Labour Court No,4 rejecting the objection of respondent No,4 shall stand restored. The appeal filed by the present petitioner before respondent No,3 Punjab Labour Court No,4, Multan shall be decided on merits.