1. ' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that respondent No,2 was employee of the petitioner who was retired from service in October, 1987. The respondent No,2 submitted an application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 on 8-11-1987 with the prayer that petitioner be directed to pay the gratuity of the respondent No,2 for the service rendered by him from 6-8-1963 to 5-10-1983 and the pension at the rate of Rs,225 per mensem. The authority accepted the claim of respondent No,2 vide order, dated 15-5-1990. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No,7 who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 20-4-1994. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore who also dismissed the same vide judgment date 19-5-12000, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the petitioners have been non-suited by the appellate forum simply for the reason that deposit of the claimed amount was not made before filing of the appeal whereas it had indeed deposited the amount pending the appeal. The learned Additional Advocate-General, further submits that both the Tribunals below were erred in law to non-suit the petitioner on technical ground. Notice was sent to the respondent No,2. The report of the process server reveals that respondents No,2 had since been died.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and persued the record myself. It is settled principle of law that when a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it must be done in that way and not otherwise as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1971 SC 61 (Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. The Settlement Commissioner Lahore and two others). It is a condition precedent to file an appeal alongwith certificate that the appellant, has deposited with the authority the amount payable under the direction appealed against by virtue of proviso of 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
2. Admittedly the petitioner did not deposit the amount and certificate alongwith memorandum of appeal, therefore, petitioner failed to fulfil the condition precedent, hence both the Tribunals were justified to non-suit the petitioner is per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1971 SC 124 (Mansab Ali v. Amir and three others). The aforesaid question of law has been considered by the superior Court and laid down the principle that the petitioner had to deposit the amount alongwith the appeal. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments: - ' Quetta Club Ltd., Quetta Cantt. v. Muslim Khan and others PLD 1983 Quetta 46.
3. ' The Executive Engineering, Feeder Division v. Shah Noor and 157 others 1999 PLC 54 (Karachi High Court).
4. ' Sakhi Gul v. Messrs Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. 1995 PLC 351.
5. ' Executive Engineer, Kotri Barrage v Isso and 41 others 1983 PLC 5.
6. ' WAPDA v. Ali Muhammad 1985 PLC 877.
7. ' Agriculture Engineer Thatta v. Mst. Shaimim Akhtar and others 1985 PLC 1093.
8. ' Executive Engineer Public Health v. Taj Muhammad 23 others 1989 PLC 919.
9. ' Chief Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways Lahore and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim and 9 others 1983 PLC 1235.
10. ' It is also settled proposition of law that Government and the ordinary citizen are equal before the Court as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1994 SCMR 833 (Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Abdul Malik). Since substantial justice has been done keeping in view this fact I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nawabzada Raunak Ali Khan's case PLD 1973 SC 236, Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1462.
11. ' In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.