Persona designata-whether a Judge or a presiding officer of a court is distinguished from the court itself is direction to perform any function of an authority created by a statute, such a Judge may be considered as ‘persona designata’ and not a court.

Hayder Miah Vs. Labour Court & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-202

Section-15, 20,21 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Section-36(3)

Whether the authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, in the absence of vesting of powers of a Magistrate,
First Class, as has been vested to the Labour Court under sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for trial of offences under the said Ordinance can take cognizance of any offence.

(a) If any Court, tribunal or Authority is specified by a particular enactment by which an offence is created as having jurisdiction to take cognizance and try such offence, it is only such Court. Tribunal or Authority that can exclusively take cognizance and to try that offence and a trial by other court becomes without jurisdiction.

(b) The power of issuing process is an incidental and ancillary power of the Court/Tribunal/Authority to be invoked to the power of taking cognizance of the offence, and

(c) As this power of taking cognizance by Tribunal  authority court is not an enlargement of the original power, such Authority/tribunal or Court can issue process against the accused at the  time of taking cognizance of the offence and also can issue process upon any person other than the accused as well for production of any document or thing without being vested with the powers of Magistracy.

Hayder Miah Vs. Labour Court & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-202

Section 15 & 25(1)(b)

It appears that a general statement that the case is barred under Section 25(b) without specifying the reasons supported by facts has been made in the written statement. Facts remain that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits allowed by the labour Court and we find no infirmity as to the claim as the petitioner is entitled to approach the labour court being the authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for realisation of his benefits, thus enforcing his right guaranteed or secured to him i.e. which are legally due upon his retirement from the service under the provision of Payment of Wages Act, 1936. It would operate as hardship and futile exercise of application of legal provision, if the heirs of the deceased workers are put to a protracted litigation afresh for realization of the benefits of their father who after successful completion of 31 years service with the petitioner retired from the service. This Court can, as well for doing complete justice, in any cause treated the said application under Section 25(1)(b) as an application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 for realization of the benefits consequent upon retirement of the deceased worker.

BWDB & Ors. Vs. Labour Court &Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-107.