ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- Through this writ petition the impugned orders dated 9-7-2013 and 10-7- 2013 are sought to be cancelled with the direction to respondent No,8 to hear the petitioner and pass any order/award.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner No,1 is public limited company and the respondent No,1 is C.B.A. Union of the petitioner's company whereas respondents Nos.2 to 4 are its office bearers Respondent No,5 is Conciliator appointed under section 35 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (the PIRA). On 1-7-2012 respondent No,1 served a demand notice upon petitioner No,2 pertaining to the legal rights of workers, consequently, several meetings were held to resolve the matter amicably but upon their failure on 29-1-2013 respondent No,1 sent a strike notice to petitioner No,2 with its copy to respondent No,5 and others Thereafter, on 6-2-2013 to 26-2-2013 conciliation proceedings were held in the office of the said respondent No,5 under section 38 ibid. Contrary to law, respondent No,5 sent some recommendations to the Director General, Labour Welfare Punjab instead of resolving the matter which cannot even form basis for any industrial dispute. Meanwhile, respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed a petition on 4-7-2013 under section 40(7) ibid before the Labour Court No,2, D.G. Khan/respondent No,8 to make award who while granting the stay order has rightly observed that the interim award cannot be announced without hearing the other party. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed before respondent No,7 who suspended the said order on 9-7-2013 but the said respondent No,2 announced interim award without hearing the petitioners on 10-7-2013 contrary to the earlier observation made on 4-7-2013, hence this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 40 subsection (6) of the PIRA award is to be announced after hearing the parties and that under sub-clause (7) interim award can be made and as such the petitioner was required to be heard.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the demand of respondent No,1 were partially agreed and that the proceedings were legally initiated before the Labour Court/respondent No,8. Adds that they should be directed to pay admitted claim whereas remaining claim may be decided by them.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. Under section 40(6) ibid the Labour Court can make award a within 30 days prom the date of dispute but after hearing both the parties and as such order dated 4-7-2013 was rightly passed.
However, after when the revision petition was filed under section 46(5) ibid the order dated 9-7- 2013 was passed suspending the earlier observation dated 4-7-2013 passed by the Labour Court whereby interim relief was refused. On the following date the interim Award was given as per recommendations of respondents Nos.1 and 2 with the direction to implement the same with its letter and spirit which appears to be violation of the said .provisions of law. It is, with this background, learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the Labour Court be directed to decide the matter and meanwhile the petitioner may be paid the undisputed claim as mentioned in chartered of demand for the years 2013-2014 which seems reasonable.
7. In this view of the matter I intend to dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the Labour Court/respondent No,8 to decide the matter expeditiously after hearing the parties. Meanwhile, undisputed demand of respondents Nos.1 to 4 shall be released subject to final outcome of the dispute.