1995 PLP 336 (PLC)

(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A.‑‑‑Dues‑‑‑Recovery‑‑‑Grievance petition as well as appeals of workers dismissed on technical grounds‑‑‑Right of appellants to recover dues, held, was not affected. M.M. Kazim for Appellants. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1989. These three appeals are filed against the common order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, whereby the application filed by three appellants were dismissed. As the points of law and facts involved in all the three appeals are same, and will disposed of them with the single decision.

2. The three appellants had filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court against the order of their removal from service but by the same were dismissed by the Labour Court. However, this Tribunal ordered the; re‑instatement of the appellants with full back benefits vide order dated 29‑8‑1988. The respondents filed Constitutional petition against the decision of this Tribunal in the month of March, 1989 which was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh. Before the Hon'ble High Court the contention of the appellants was, that in pursuance of the decision of this Tribunal they had asked the appellants to resume duty but they did not resume duty. The contention of the appellants was that they were reporting for duty, but the respondents were not taking them on duty. By an interim order dated 4‑5‑1989, the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh by consent of parties passed the following orders:‑ "It is agreed that Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim would escort the private respondent to the petitioner's factory on 10‑5‑1989 at 8 o'clock, and would contact the Security Officer who would take on duty the above respondent and would issue necessary attendance card. After the resumption of the above duty, the petitioners shall pay the salary directly to the private respondent, but the arrears would be deposited by the petitioners within a period of one month with the Nazir of this Court. The above order is without prejudice to the right of both the parties."

3. Admittedly, after Mr. Mirza Kazim escorted the appellants to the respondent's factory, they were allowed to resume duty and attendance cards were issued to them, but after a few days their services were again terminated for which the appellants have filed separate grievance petitions, which are still pending in the Labour Court.

4. In the present grievance petitions the prayer of the appellants was, that they should be paid the arrears of the salary from the date. They reported for resumption of duty in pursuance of the decision of this Tribunal to the day, when they are allowed to resume duty under the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court. It would appear from the order of High Court, reproduced above, that the respondents were ordered to deposit the arrears with the Hon'ble High Court. Arrears would mean the amount which is not paid in time. The amount of salary if any payable to the appellants as claimed by them, would be deemed to be arrears as it was not paid in time. Under the aforementioned order it would also be deposited with the Hon'ble High Court. In view of the circumstances, the learned Labour Court had rightly dismissed the grievance applications as infructuous.

5. It is contended by Mr. Mirza Kazim, that arrears under order of the Hon'ble High Court would be the back benefits only. It is a question of interpretation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, in a matter which is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It will not: be proper for the Labour Court or this Tribunal to interpret such orders, but the appellants may seek interpretation/clarification from the High Court if they so desire. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed in limine.

6. However, as the grievance petitions as well as the appeals have been dismissed on technical ground. It would not affect the rights of the appellants to recover the dues, if any, after seeking interpretation from the Hon'ble High Court. M.Y.H./1596/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.