ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD
C.P.No.S- 349 of 2009
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
1. For Katcha Peshi.
2. For orders on MA 2617/09.
29.11.2010
Mr. Mumtaz Alam Leghari, Assistant A.G for petitioners.
Miss Nasim Abbasi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
=
Through this Constitutional Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.6.2009 passed by Commissioner Worksman’s Compensation and Authority under payment of Wages Act, Hyderabad in Case No.203/2006 whereby he allowed such application and petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.86,275/- with the authority within 30 days for onward payment to the Respondent No.1.
Upon perusal of the proceedings, it appears that previously an application U/s 15 of Compensation of Wages Act was decided by Syed Nasir Ali Shah Masoomi, the then Commissioner Worksman’s Compensation and Authority which order was impugned through appeal before the Sindh Labour Court No.6, Hyderabad and vide order dated 25.2.2009 appeal was allowed and matter was remanded back to the Authority to give fresh finding o n all other issues separately.
In pursuant of such direction, Authority has passed the impugned order in above terms.
It is inter alia contended that before passing the impugned order, Petitioners have been condemned unheard as neither the notices were issued to them nor they were provided any opportunity of hearing. Per learned counsel, the Respondent No.1 who was a Radiator Mechanic did not fall within the definition of ‘Worksman’ therefore, impugned order passed by Respondent No.2 is not maintainable and corum non-judice. On a query, about maintainability of this petition, learned counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon the case of Nazakat Ali Vs. WAPDA through its Manager and others reported in 2004 SCMR 145. Per learned counsel, the petitioners instead of approaching the appellate forum can file Constitutional Petition before this Court.
Conversely, Miss Nasim Abbasi, Advocate for Respondent No.1 has raised the objection on very maintainability of this petition. Per learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed by competent authority and if the petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed by authority, they had to file an appeal before the Labour Court as provided in Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Upon a perusal of Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, it appears that an appeal against the judgment made under sub-section 3 or sub-section 4 of Section 15 may be preferred within 30 days after the date on which direction was made before the Labour Court, constituted under Industrial Relations Ordinance within whose jurisdiction the cause of action to which the appeal relates arose. Since the Petitioner has not challenged the legality of the impugned order before the proper forum i.e. Labour Court as provided in Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which is proper forum to determine the legality or otherwise of the impugned order.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that this petition is not maintainable and same is accordingly dismissed. However, the Petitioner may approach the appropriate forum if so advised.
Petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Tufail