' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide F.A.O. No,124/2004 to F.A.O. No,134/2004 and F.A.O. No,144/2004 as common questions are involved in all these appeals.
2. Respondent No,1 in all these cases filed grievance Petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. All these grievance petitions were allowed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan vide Order dated 31-1-1994 in following terms:- "The dispute between the parties is whether the job being performed by the petitioner is permanent or not. According to the statement of Mr. Abdul Jabbar it is established that it is of permanent nature. It being of permanent nature the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.
The grievance petition is thus accepted. The petitioner should be regularized since the date of his appointment in the relevant pay scale."
' The appeals filed by the appellants before learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal, Lahore were dismissed in default on 13-3-1995. However, these were restored on the application of the appellants on 16-1-1996. In the interregnum period, the services of the respondents in these cases were terminated on 31-10-1995. Again grievance petitions were filed and were allowed on 18-6- 1996. The appeals filed against order dated 31-1-1994 were withdrawn. New appeals were filed against judgment dated 18-6-1996 and the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 1-3-2000. Writ petitions filed in this Court were also dismissed on 18-4-2000 while leave to appeal was refused vide order dated 23-7-2001 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The end result was that judgment dated 31-1-1994 of the learned Labour Court remained intact. On 18-5- 2002, the respondents in these case filed complaint under section 25-A(8), 51, 54 and 55 of I.R.O., 1969. It was stated that despite demand the service benefits as being regular and permanent workmen were not being paid to the respondents with effect from the date of their appointment.
The dues in each case were worked out and annexed with the complaint. The appellants in their reply contended that the back-benefits have not been allowed and that the order has been issued on 21-9-2001 implementing judgment dated 31-1-1994 of the learned Labour Court. Precise pleas was that the benefits were payable only with effect from 31-1-1994 i,e, the date of judgment. The learned Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan vide judgment dated 4-5-2004 allowed the said complaints inasmuch as it has directed the appellants to pay the dues to respondents w,e,f, the date of judgment dated 31-1-1994 within 30 days of the judgment, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
3. The learned counsel for respondents in all these cases put up appearance and records are also available, the cases are, therefore, decided as Pakka cases.
4. The learned counsel for appellants contends that judgment dated 31-1-1994 did not grant any back-benefit. He has further contended that the evidence has not been recorded in the matter of the amount due in each case.
5. The learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, argued that judgment dated 31-1-1994 does not leave any manner of doubt that it takes effect from the respective date of appointment of each respondent. Regarding other contention, it is stated that the amount was worked out and the details had been appended with the complaint and the correctness of the same was neither questioned nor it has been stated by the appellants as to what amount was due according to their own calculation.
6. I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for parties. I have already reproduced above the judgment dated 31-1-1994 of learned Labour Court No,9, Multan.
There is no manner of doubt in my mind that the judgment is to take effect from the date of appointment of respective respondent and the direction is that the regularization was to be made with effect from the date of appointment in the relevant pay scale. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for appellant is concerned, I do find that the amount was calculated and the details were appended with the complaint in each case neither its correctness was questioned nor some other amount was mentioned, which according to the appellant is payable, even in these appeals no such exercise has been undertaken. This contention is also accordingly rejected.
7. The learned counsel for appellants then tried to argue, rather surprisingly, that under the law, for non-compliance of the said judgment only punishment could be awarded to the appellants. The contention is frivolous, section 51 of I.R.O. 1969 provides in a categorical term that any money due from an employer in the light of decision of Labour Court may be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It further authorizes the Labour Court to compute the amount of benefit itself and to order for its recovery as arrears of land revenue within a time to be stipulated by it. No other point of law has been urged. The appeals have no force. The same are accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. However, the direction issued by the Labour Court in the impugned order shall now be complied with within thirdly days of this order, failing which the law shall take its own course.