' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- The captioned five revision petitions involve common questions of facts and law and as such they are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The facts of the cases briefly are that the respondents are employees of the petitioner establishment. They are members of the trade union and by their trade union activities the petitioner establishment is not very comfortable.
3. The respondent employees have filed grievance petitions for their regularization claiming as permanent workmen in the establishment which is being defended by the petitioner Mills. Along with the grievance petitions, the respondents filed applications for the grant of stay order and also added that they are not being paid their salaries and a direction may be issued to the petitioner Mills to continue to pay their wages during the pendency of the grievance petitions.
4. These grievance petitions are being duly contested by the petitioner establishment before the learned Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur. After hearing arguments of the parties, the learned Labour Court passed the following order on 16-3-2011:--- "The perusal of record indicates that the petitioner has filed grievance petition for regularization of his service and on his application for interim injunction even stay order was issued by my learned predecessor. Vide order dated 17-6-2009 admittedly, the petitioner is serving with the respondent so far and it is the respondent who does not permit him to enter the gate and discharge his routine duties and in this situation apparently there is no fault on the part of the petitioner if after entering the gate petitioner commits any misconduct he can be proceeded against in accordance with law but it is not appropriate by any means that his monthly salary may not be paid to him in this situation the application moved by the petitioner for releasing the monthly salary is hereby accepted and respondent is hereby directed to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner till the next date of hearing i,e, 30-3-2011."
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are temporary employees of the Mills recruited on contract basis and they cannot attain permanent status in any way. As for performance of their duties it was complained by the learned counsel that whenever they enter the mills, they used to instigate the other colleagues to slow down the work which discourages the other workers and entails into the loss to the Mills. Even otherwise, they have no case for regularization. They remain absent from duty and payment to a worker who does not render any work has no justification. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 16-3-2011 passed by the learned Labour Court for payment of their salaries is not warranted in law.
6. On the other hand it is canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents that they are regular employees of the Mills and not seasonal workers only but on account of their filing of the grievance petitions and trade union activities the establishment has become inimical and hostile towards them and do not allow them to enter the factory premises and they are also kept outside the gates of the Mills and restrained from performed their duties.
7. Arguments have been heard and available record has been gone through.
8. The fact of the matter is that the respondents have claimed regularization on account of length of their services and the matter is pending before the Labour Court at Bahawalpur. The court order that during the pendency of their grievance petitions they shall be paid their salaries appears to be in keeping with the dictates of law and apparently there appears to be no defect, flaw or infirmity in the order. The petitioner is unhappy with their trade union activities and does not allow them to enter into the mills because they promote the trade unionism and create unnecessary problems for the Mills management. This issue can be resolved only and only after recording of evidence of the parties because it amounts to a factual controversy. Till then the Mills administration should comply with the order and defiance on their part cannot be appreciated in any way. It also appears from the record that the management has decided to issue notice of misconduct to all the respondents. In case they can make out a real case of misconduct then they may proceed with it and if it is a counter blast to their trade union activities that of course would have no legal sanction behind.
9. In this view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the learned Labour Court appear to be lawful and valid and the petitioner establishment should in the first instance show their fidelity to law and comply with the orders of the Labour Court. With these remarks the revision petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.