1997 PLP 151 (PLC)

Hafiz Muhammad Yunus, Representative for Respondents. This is a petition under section 22A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, wherein the petitioner is employer i.e. establishment of Islamabad Publication (Pvt.) Limited (Daily The Muslim). It was submitted that in the petitioner's establishment, the respondents are the employees and are also office‑bearers of the Muslim Workers' Union, which is a registered trade union and is also enjoying the status of collective bargaining agent. It was submitted that the petitioner establishment is facing certain financial difficulties, as the business is going in loss, due to which the petitioner cannot meet the demands/requirements/pay and salary of the workers, including respondents. It was contended that in order to pressurise the petitioner, the respondents are taking the law into their own hands and are bent upon committing unfair labour practice with the petitioner, within the meaning of section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969. Considering such averments an interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 10‑3‑1996.

2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application, wherein the averments made in the petition were strongly denied. 3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also parties in person and have also considered the documents filed on record.

4. Before gong into the legal and factual aspects of the case I feel it necessary to observe here that actual dispute between the parties is not of the submission of various demands by the collective bargaining agent i.e. respondents or the intended commission of acts of unfair labour practice but is the stoppage of salary by the petitioner to all the workers of the establishment on the ground that the petitioner‑establishment is facing financial difficulties and is unable to meet the day to day expenses, including pay/salary of the workers. Admittedly, the salary of the workers has been stopped for a period of few months due to which the respondents, who are the representatives of the collective bargaining agent (C.B.A.), started demanding the same by certain acts, details thereof is not necessary to be inquired into. It is very strange that the petitioner‑establishment has stopped the salary/pay/wages of all the workers of the establishment on the ground that they are facing financial losses and filed the instant petition with the prayer to restrain the respondents and through them all the workers from demanding the same from the petitioner. Again I would like to observe that the wages/pay/salary is not only a fundamental right of the employees/workers but is the basic term and condition of service. It is the wages/salary for which the workers perform their, duties for the employer and therefore, it is also the responsibility and top most prior duty of the employer to pay the salary to the workers/employees, irrespective of the fact whether he is facing financial losses, or is not getting profits or otherwise. The payment of the salary/wages is not connected with the earning of profit or bearing of losses of the employer but the employer is duty bound to pay the salary/wages of the employees/workers immediately i.e. if already agreed on per month basis. Here I would like to quote a recital of Holy Prophet (peace be upon him): (In this case after the completion of one month) because the salary/pay is paid after a month). The provisions of section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 also become important here as the same lays down a clear responsibility upon the employer (petitioner) to make the payment of wages, which are admittedly due in the present case. In the case in hand, the petitioner have stopped the wages/salary of the workers/employees of the establishment on the ground that they are not getting profit or facing financial losses, which is totally irrelevant and is misleading ground of the refusal of wages/salary of the workers, while the workers/employees are still performing their duties regularly, such reason is neither logical nor A sustainable under the law. Therefore the petition is also misconceived and that the petitioner cannot restrain the respondents from taking any lawful act/step for getting their lawful salary/wages, admittedly due against the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have taken any illegal action or have committed any act which may constitute unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969, therefore the petition is not maintainable on this score also.

5. As a result of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. H.B.T./276/NIRC Petition dismissed.