' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- As consented by the parties these appeals have been heard and disposed of at Katcha Peshi.
' Since the common facts and circumstances are involved and the appeals arise out of a single order, those are being disposed of by this single judgment.
' These appeals are directed against the order, dated 1-3-2005 passed by Presiding Officer Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad in complaints filed before him under section 46(6)(7) of I.R.O.
2002.
2. Briefly stated the facts forming the background of the case are that the respondents were workers of appellant and their services were terminated. They challenged the orders of their termination before the Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad. Vide order, dated 7th October, 2002, passed by the learned Labour Court, the grievance petitions of the respondents were allowed. The appellants were directed to reinstate the respondents Within a period of 15 days from the date of the order and to pay their back benefits for the period for which they had remained out of service at the rate at which they were getting their wages at the time of their dismissal.
3. The orders passed by the Labour Court were not assailed by the appellants. Since the orders passed by the Labour Court were not complied with by the appellants, therefore, the respondents seem to have filed complaints before the Labour Court for seeking the compliance of orders of their reinstatement and back benefits. It seems that at a subsequent stage the respondents were reinstated in service from July, 2003, however, the orders with regard to the payment of their back benefits were not complied with. After complete trial of the appellants who were accused before the Labour Court they were awarded different punishments. Hence these appeals.
4. Consequent upon service of notices the respondents appeared in person and expressed their inability to engage an Advocate. They, however, requested to be heard in person. Since the respondents were unrepresented, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh was put on notice to assist the Court.
5. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondents/ workers were paid all the, legal dues, however, they were not entitled to the full back benefits as they have admitted in the evidence that they were gainfully employed. It was next contended that the orders passed by the Labour Court were beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and that the rethedy for recovery of back benefits was provided in section 62 of the I.R.O. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents may adopt such recourse.
6. The respondents who appeared in person argued that they were out of job since the end of 1999 and were running from pillar to post since past 4 years and passing difficult time. They submitted that the appellants have intentionally not complied with the orders of this Court, for which they are liable to action under the law.
7. It was contended by learned Additional Advocatp-General, Sindh that the order passed by the Labour Court whereby the respondents were directed to be reinstated and to be paid their full back benefits had attained the finality as it was not challenged by the employer at the-- competent forum. He has fully supported-the order of the Labour Court and contended that the appellants were neither entitled nor competent to raise any objection to dispute the back benefits at this stage as it Will amount to reopening the whole case.
' A.A.-G. Submitted that the Labour Laws are beneficial laws and, therefore, are to be construed liberally and that the respondents were entitled to the back benefits allowed to them by a competent Court of law.
8. Contentions put forward on behalf of the parties/Advocates have been given due and proper consideration, the R&P of the case has been examined and the order passed by the Labour Court has been perused.
9. It is not denied that the termination/removal of the respondents was declared illegal by the Labour Court. The grievance petitions of the respondents were allowed vide order, dated 7th October, 2002. The workers/respondents were directed to be reinstated in service and be paid their back benefits for compliance of which a specific period of 15 days was mentioned in the order.
Admittedly the orders of the Labour Court were not complied with till July, 2003, which was beyond the stipulated period. In July, 2003, however, the respondents were reinstated in service.
Consequent upon their reinstatement, in service in July, 2003, the respondents resigned after performing their duties for one month. Their resignations were accepted by the appellant/Management and they were paid their wages for the period they had worked after their reinstatement. In that manner first part of the order of the Labour Court was complied with, but evidently the second part of the order which was with regard to payment of back benefits to the workers was not implemented.
10. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the respondents were paid their legal dues is without substance and misconceived. The appellants were directed by the Labour Court to pay to the respondents, their full back benefits. How the legal dues of the respondents were calculated by the appellants was not clear. Neither anything was placed on the record to that effect, nor any material was produced during_ the hearing of the appeals. The respondents were thus deprived of their wages for a period from January, 2000 to. July, 2003.
11. As provided under subsection (6) of section 46 the Legislature has made specific provision, thereby empowering the Labour Court to give effect to the orders or decisions passed by it under subsection (4) or subsection (5) of the section 46, I.R.O.
12. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the appellants for directing the respondents to seek their remedy before the Labour Court ,by invoking the provisions of section 62 of the I.R.O. Was concerned, it Was nothing but merely an attempt to delay the payment. When the respondents were reinstated by the Labour Court with back benefits, there was nothing to be adjudicated by the Labour Court so as to direct the respondents to approach the Labour Court by filing applications under section 62 of the I.R.O. It needs no emphasis to state that the Labour Laws are beneficial laws and the remedial and beneficial statutes are to be construed liberally as such statutes are meant to advance the cause of justice. At this stage directing the respondents to approach the Labour Court for seeking relief in respect of recovery of their back benefits in my view would be a mockery of law. The tendency has grown in. The employers to prolong and multiply the litigation with a purpose to drag the worker in the Courts so that he becomes exhausted and sick of the litigation and is left with no option but to abandon his rights. It is high time for the law Courts to rise to the occasion for the purpose of advancing the cause of justice more particularly in the aid of weaker sections of the society.
13. The perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court makes it abundantly clear that the same was passed in accordance with the specific provisions of law. The facts of the cases are not disputed and the legal provisions are quite clear. The order is substantiated by valid reasons. No illegality, jurisdictional error or infirmity was pointed out by the counsel for the appellants. Nothing has been noticed to hold that the Labour Court travelled beyond jurisdiction. The impugned order is thus, unexceptionable.
' For what has been stated above I am of the firm view that the appeals being without merit must fail. The appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.
' Miscellaneous applications have accordingly been rendered infructuous and stand dismissed.