' Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 29-3-2002 by which the case has been remanded to the Punjab Labour Court for fresh decision on merits.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Worker on 7-10-1971 by the Town Committee, Chunian, District Kasur. He retired from service on 7-1-1993 on attaining the age of superannuation. The payment of pensionary benefits were made to him but an amount of Rs,22,547 the break up of which is mentioned in para. 4 of the petition was deducted. Aggrieved by the said deduction the petitioner filed a petition under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before the Authority at Kasur. This petition was accepted with the penalty of three times compensation to the petitioner, and the total amount payable by respondent No,1 was Rs,90,188 vide order dated 21-10-1996. Respondent No,1 filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Court No,2, which was dismissed vide order dated 17-4-1998 on the sole ground that a certificate of deposit of decretal amount is not attached. Revision petition was filed under section 38(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which has been accepted and the case has been remanded to the Punjab Labour Court No,2 for decision afresh.
3. The main ground raised against the judgment impugned is that the appeal filed by respondent No,1 was not accompanied by a certificate of deposit of the decretal amount hence as the appeal was not maintainable under section 17(1)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act, the revision petition was also not maintainable, and the order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside by this Court. He relies on judgments recorded as Rashid Ahmad Khan and 10 others v. Pakistan Railways, through its Chairman, Railway Headquarters Office, Islamabad (1998 PLC 323) and Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Okara v. Taj Muhammad and 23 others (1989 PLC 919).
4. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Shan Gul, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate- General has opposed this petition on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable against the remand order. It is further contended that the technicalities cannot be made basis for the dismissal of the appeal or revision and the law demands that the cases should be decided on merits instead of on technical grounds. It is further contended that the petitioner should not hesitate in joining the proceedings before the Labour Court if he has good case on merits.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the orders. The grounds which weighed for the acceptance of the revision by the Labour Appellate Tribunal are that the amount has already been deposited before the Labour Court. Secondly the controversies between the parties should be adjudicated upon merits and one party should not be brushed aside on technical grounds and thirdly the time was not given by the Appellate Court for the deposit of the compensation and the appeal has been dismissed straightaway. I do not want to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner as the matter has not been decided by the Labour Court on merits and respondent No,1 was non-suited on the technical grounds that the decretal amount was not deposited by it The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its order impugned has mentioned that the Committee/respondent No,1 has already deposited the decretal amount as per the direction of the Tribunal hence it cannot be said that this ground was available to the petitioner for the dismissal of the appeal. The technicalities should not stand in the way of disposal of cases.
It has been held by this Court in judgments reported as "PLD 1993 Lah. Page 7", "PLD 1994 Lah. 3 "PLD 1994 Lah. 55" and the remarkable judgment by Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius as he then was (I must confess that having dealt with technicalities for more than forty years, out of which thirty years are at the bar, I do not feel much impressed with them. I think the proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy. The English system of administration of justice on which our own is based may be to a certain extent technical but we are not to take from that system its defects. Any system which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights is defective to that extent. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person what is his, in Imtiaz Ahmad v.
Ghulam Ali and others (PLD 1963 SC 382) and "PLD 1975 SC 678", PLD 1990 Lah. 121" and "PLD 1990 Lah.
182". Even otherwise no writ petition is maintainable against the revision petition. Reference in this connection is made to "1991 SCMR page 970" and "1991 SCMR page 2284".
6. Due to the above case-law I do not find any reason for interference in writ jurisdiction in this, case. This petition has no merits and is dismissed.