' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the order dated 19-1-1978 passed in revision by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.
2. The dispute arises out of separate applications filed by the private respondents claiming that they had not been paid their conveyance allowance w,e,f, 1-3-1972. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act disposed of all the cases by one order passed on 13-6-1977 and directed the petitioners to pay conveyance allowance amounting to Rs,3;20,145 and also awarded the same amount as compensation. The order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No,2. The Punjab Labour Court No,2, accepted the appeal on 2-10-1977 and set aside the award made by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act.
3. Aggrieved the respondents went in revision against the order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No,2, before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal accepted the revision holding that the appeal before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was not competent. Hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to revise any order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, as there is no provision under which a revision could be filed before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, drawn the attention of this Court to section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in accordance with which the Tribunal can on its own motion at any time call for record of any case or proceedings under the Ordinance in which a Labour Court has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such order. Reference has also been made to section 35(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which defines the powers of the Labour Court and inter alia provides that the Labour Court shall exercise and perform such other powers and functions as may be conferred upon or assigned to it by or under this Ordinance. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the proceedings taken under any other law for the time being in force would also be deemed to be proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
6, There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to revise the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. Admittedly, the Payment of Wages Act does not contain any provision vesting revisional power in any Authority, Court or Tribunal. Section 35(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance empowers the Labour Court to exercise and perform such functions as may be conferred upon or assigned it by or under this Ordinance. However, while hearing the appeal against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the Punjab Labour Court acts as an Appellate Authority set up under the Payment of Wages Act and does not deal with the appeal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7. It is also to be noted that section 38(3-a) of the Ordinance empowers the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to call for record of any case or proceedings "under this Ordinance" which clearly means that it is only when a case has been decided under the Ordinance that the revisional jurisdiction vesting in the Tribunal can be exercised. The decision rendered under any other law would not thus qualify for the exercise of revisional power.
8. There is yet another ground in support of the view which has taken which is that under section 17(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it has been specifically mentioned that save as otherwise in subsection (1) any direction made under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 15 shall be final Since finality is attached to the order passed by the Alithority under the Payment of Wages Act, section 15 of the said Act, to allow it to be challenged in revision under any enactment would destroy, the finality which could not have been the intention of the Legislature. The above view is supported by the judgment of this Court in Pakistan through Chairman, Pakistan Railway Board, Lahore v. Maqsood Ali and others 1981 PLC 307 and Pakistan Railways v. Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1994 PLC 401. To be fair, it may be pointed out that a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in National Cement Industries Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate. Tribunal 1981 PLC 561 has taken a contrary view and has held that the revisional jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal would extend to the order passed by Labour Court on an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.' With due deference and great respect to the learned Judges, who have decided the case of National Cement Industries' case supra, it was not noticed that under section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Appellate Tribunal is competent to call for the record of any case or proceedings "under this Ordinance" i,e, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and not any other Iaw. Similarly, the intention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the provision of section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act which confers finality to the orders of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It would be destroyed, if it is held that revision would lie under another law against the order passed by the Labour Court.
' In view of what has been said above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to be without any lawful authority and of 'no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.