2014 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.

Backdrop of the instant controversy is that the petitioner purchased Crescent Factories Vegetable Ghee Mills (old and new unit) Chichawatni through sale agreement dated 5-1-1993. As per terms and conditions mentioned in the sale agreement, the petitioner took over the entire personnel under its management. Under the agreement, the petitioner was given the right either to give Golden Hand Shake to the employees or ask them to work for one year without any interruption. Later on, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the C.B.A of both the Units on 20-2-1993 and copy thereof was also sent to respondent No.1. It is averred that feeling aggrieved by the payment made to the Ex-employees, 20 Ex-workers filed application under Section 15(2) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 before the Authority, claiming their alleged dues, which was dismissed on 3-10-1993. They preferred an appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan, which was accepted. Then the petitioner preferred revision petitions, which were accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal through order dated 15-5-1997. Thereafter, the said 20 workers also obtained their dues after the judgment of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 15-5-1997 and no dispute of any sort regarding the payment of Golden Hand Shake or other dues were left.

2. It is further alleged that on 3-3-1998 the petitioner has been served with a notice by respondent No.1 to supply copies regarding the payment of Golden Hand Shake claiming that a complaint has been made in respect of irregularities in payment of Golden Hand Shake other than 20 persons who challenged the payment in the Court. Subsequently, reminders were also issued. It is added that since the matter regarding the payment is a past and closed transaction, therefore, the act of respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 to initiate or to probe into the alleged irregularities which have been indicated in the impugned letter is illegal, uncalled for and without jurisdiction, hence this constitutional petition, therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed parawise comments and opposed the petition. It is alleged that the agreement if any between the petitioner and the CBA is not in their knowledge and no copy of the agreement was received by them. It is further alleged that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Mainly, the contention of the petitioner is that despite payment of all the dues, it being past and closed transaction, the respondents have no authority or right to issue the impugned notice. From the record it appears that no effective/final order has been passed by the respondents as only a notice has been issued to the petitioner requiring to submit some documents. Hesitation of the petitioner to submit documents speaks volume against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he entered into agreement with CBA. In my view despite agreement by the CBA, the workers can agitate their grievance, as they were not party to the said agreement. Under Clause 10 of the sale agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1, the buyers (petitioner) was bound to supply annual audited accounts performance activity reports and other relevant information etc within three years of the ownership of the project, nevertheless it does not mean that now respondent No.1 is precluded from getting any information from the petitioner. As regards the decision of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is concerned, according to the petitioner himself, the said matter was agitated by only 20 workers, therefore, the other workers have a right to press their claim if any. Moreover, no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed.

6. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. MWA/49/Isl. Petition dismissed.