' This is a revision against the order dated 2-10-1977 of Punjab Labour Court, No, 7, Gujranwala, acting as Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
2. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act passed an order dated 31-7-1977, accepting 210 applications of the respondents, requiring the Divisional Manager, Rice Milling Corporation, Gujranwala to deposit a sum of Rs, 8,13,063,30 with an additional amount of Re. 2,100 as cost at the rate of Rs, 10 per worker.
3. Against the above order dated 30-8-1977 the Divisional Manager, Rice Milling Corporation, petitioner filed an appeal before Punjab Labour Court, No, 7, Gujranwala, which is Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Alongwith the appeal a certificate of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act was field in compliance of section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. According to the proviso to the said section, no appeal is competent 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. The certificate of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act is as under "Certified that a sum of rupees Eight lace Fifteen thousand One hundred and Sixty three and paisa thirty only (Re. 8,15,163.30) has been deposited on 30-8-1977 vide Cheque No, H-17 696646 dated 28-84977 of National Bank of Pakistan, Liberty Market, Gulberg-III, Lahore by the respondent, Zonal Manager, Rice Milling Corporation, Gujranwala in compliance with the direction made on 31-74977 in the cases Nos. 475/77 to 684/77 tilled as Khushi Mohammad and 209 others v. Rice Milling Corporation, Gujranwala."
' The above certificate is dated 30-8-1977. The appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act issued notice to the respondents and the operation of the impugned order was suspended sill 10- 9.1977, on which date the case was adjourned to 2-10-1977, because the record from the lower Court had not been received. The operation of the impugned order was continued to be suspended. On 2-10-1977 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable on the ground that the cheque deposited by the petitioner had not been encashed till 22-9-1977. This was done as per intimation of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act that the cheque had not been encashed till 22-9-1977.
4. Aggrieved by the above order, the Divisional Manager, Rice Milling Corporation, Gujranwals, petitioner has preferred this revision.
5. The Representative of the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the revision was not competent. According to section 31(3-a) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Tribunal may, on its own motion at any time, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Ordinance, in which a Labour Court within its jurisdiction has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such order, and may pass such order in relation there to as it thinks fit.
6. From the above it is clear that an order passed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is revisable by the Tribunal. In the instant case the impugned order was pasted by the Labour Court acting as an Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which is not an order passed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but nevertheless it will be deemed to be an order passed by the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in view of section 35(5Xd) of the said Ordinance, which reads as under :- ' A Labour Court shall exercise and perform such other powers and functions an are or may be conferred upon or assigned to it by or under this Ordinance or any other law.
' This shows that a Labour Court can pass an order not only under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but also under any law, which is covered by the expression 'or any other law'
7. Now coming to the merits of the case the representative of the respondents contended that the appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was not competent on a:count of non-compliance with the proviso to section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, which required that no appeal was competent unless the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a certificate of the authority to the effect that the appellant had deposited with the authority the amount payable under the direction appeared against. In the instant case the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by such certificate to the effect that a sum of Rs 8,15,163.30 had been deposited on 30-8-1976 vide cheque No, H-17 696646 dated 28-8-1977. I find no force in this contention as to what is requited by the provision of law is that a certificate issued by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act should accompany the memorandum of appeal. The certificate was issued by the said authority and it was filed alongwith the appeal. Indeed, the cheque was not encashed but it cannot be said to be the non-compliance with the requirement of law. In fact the authority under the Payment of Wages Act should not have accepted the cheque or should not have issued C the certificate until it was encashed and the amount was duly received. This should be noted by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for future guidance. In the instant calve, however, I find that the fault for not encashing the cheque lay with tits bank and not with the petitioner. In this connection I find that on 5-9-1977 the Rice Milling Control and Development (Repeat) Ordinance, 1977 (XXX of 1977) was issued by the President of Pakistan, whereby the Ride Mills and units under the control of the Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan were denationalised and it was stated that all such establishments must be returned within a period of one month. The General Manager, Finance of the Rice Milling Corporation wrote a letter to the National Bank of Pakistan to the effect that as a consequence of the Government decision to denationalize Rice Husking Units, no withdrawals will, henceforth, be permissible from any of the accounts, which were being operated by Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan Units/Areas till further instructions. There was a third account known as 'President Director, Punjab Account', which was not sealed. The Cheque No, H-17 696646 dated 23-8-1977 for Rs, 8.15,163.30 issued by the Deputy Chief Officer, Finance Rico Milling Corporation of Pakistan, Lahore on Resident Director, Punjab Account was not encashed. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was due to the fault of the Bank and not of the petitioner. The petitioner on 25-9-1977 wrote to the Zonal Chief of the National Bank of Pakistan, complaining that Liberty Market Branch of the Bank was wrongly not allowing the withdrawals from the Resident Director, Punjab Account. It was, therefore, requested that it should be advised to continue operating the R-D Punjab Account. On the date when the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner could not have come to know that the cheque had not been encashed.
8. The learned Appellate Authority should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to find out as to why the cheque had not been encashed, before dismissing the appeal as incompetent.
9. In support of the contention that the fault lay with the Bank and not with the petitioner in not encashing the cheque, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on certificate dated 8-11-1977 of the National Bank of Pakistan, which reads as under :- "Cheque No, H-17 696646 dated 28-8-1977 for Rs, 8,15,163 30 drawn on our Bank by the Resident Directorate, Rica .Milling Corporation of Pakistan, Lahore favouring the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Gujranwala was not paid on presentation on 7-9.1977 in view of the verbal instructions given by our Controlling Office that withdrawals should not be allowed from the Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan accounts consequent upon the press please that the rice milling units have been denationalized."
' He also relied on certificate dated 12-11-1977 of the Manager of the National Bank of Pakistan, Liberty Market Branch, Lahore, which reads as under:- "Certificate that cheque No, H-17 696646. Dated 28-8-1977 for Re. 8,16,163.30 was issued in the account of Resident Director, Punjab of the Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan, which is being operated by us."
' Both the above certificates are accompanied by an affidavit of the Finance Manager to the effect that he did not stop the withdraw from the account of the Resident Director, Punjab from which the cheque was issued and the action of the Bank was a mistake.
10. From the above it is clear that the fault did not lie with the petitioner but instead it lay with the Bent, which had sealed the account solely relying upon the press release that the rice milling units had been denationalized.
11. In view of the above, I accept the revision, set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority under the Payment of Wages Act and remand the case back to it for disposal on merits in accordance with law, provided, the sum of Re. 8,15,163.30 is deposited with the authority under the Payment of Wages Act within a week from today.