1. Azim Khan and 35 others have filed this application under the Payment of Wages Act, stating that they had been suspended from service without any notice. They have not mentioned the value of the relief sought by them in the plaint in column No. 4 of the application. There are only two thumb- impressions and one signature on the application, and on the list of the applicants, attached with the plaint, only Azim Khan has put his thumb-- impression. Although Azim Khan was not legally authorised to represent 35 claimants, my predecessor admitted the application and issued notice to the respondent. Column No. 5(a) of the application has also been left blank and no delayed wages have been claimed. On 10-1-1966 both parties appeared before the Court and stated that they bad decided to arrive at a compromise and they undertook to file a written agreement with the Court. On 17-1-1966 only 5 workers were present in the Court, and they stated that they had received their dues from the respondent. On 18-1-1966 a written agreement bearing thumb- impressions 'of 27 workers was filed with the Court in which they stated that they had received their dues from the respondent. Another applica--tion was moved by 5 workers stating that they had not been paid the notice pay and bonus. The petitioners were repeatedly directed to come either personally, or through an authorised representative, but they did not comply with the legal formalities. On 18-3-1966 only three petitioners and the respondent were present and their statements were recorded. Muhammad Bashir son of Snab, Noor Badshah son of Sanab Gul, and Miskeen son of Khan Wali all the three stated before the Court that they had received their actual earned wages which were due to them at the time they were asked to leave their jobs on account of the non-availability of the raw material in the days of emergency, but they were not paid the notice pay. Khalifa Syed Ahmad Khan who is an Accountant employed with the respondent made a statement before the Court that the wages of all the applicants were paid in full before they left service. He has stated that the raw material was not available on account of the emergency in the country, and the respondent had to close down the factory. The factory was declared as closed on 4-12-1965 and up to that time the wages of all the employees were cleared by the respondent. He brought the registers of payment and attendance in the Court according to which the respondent paid Rs. 19.50 to Muhammad Basbir, Rs. 30 to Noor Badshah and Ra. 30 tp Muhammad Miskeen, in full and final settlement of their dues on 4-12-1965. He has further stated that the notice pay was not due to them a they were employed on daily wages and their length of service was less than three months.
2. In view of the evidence produced before me, I am convinced that the applicants who did not sign the agreement wore, not legally entitled to get notice pay and the respondent has already paid them their earned wages. The remaining applicants who got their dues filed the agreement in the Court. It is, therefore, clear, that the respondent paid the wages to all the workers 8 before the factory was declared as closed on account of the non---availability of raw material in the days of emergency. The application from five -workers dated 18-1-1966 is therefore, dismissed. The parties should bear, their own costs.