DECISION The record and proceedings in the two applications under section 51,
1. R. O. Made by Mr. Mumtaz Ali and Mr. Shahzad Tariq before the learned Fifth Labour Court, in respect of the back benefits, were called for, in the exercise of the suo Motu powers of revision of this tribunal to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the common order made by the learned Labour Court on the said two applications. On the one hand rejecting the applications made by the said two workmen for amendment of their original claim, and at the same time discussing on merit their additional claim over and above the original claim and hold--ing that the said two workmen, Mumtaz Ali and Shahzad Tariq were not entitled to the additional claim.
2. The brief facts which have given rise to these two revision peti--tions are that the services of the two workmen, Mumtaz Ali and Shahzad Tariq were terminated on 28th December, 1972 on grounds of reduction. They successfully challenged the order of termination of their services before a Junior Labour Court which ordered their re-instatement in service with back benefits vide, decision, dated 2nd July, 1973. An appeal against the said decision was preferred to the Fifth Labour Court but it was unsuccessful. The two workmen Mumtaz Ali and Shahzad Tariq there--upon, filed applications under section 51,
1. R. O. For recovery of back benefits as arrears of land revenue. Mumtaz Ali claimed an amount of Rs. 4,175 while Shahzad Tariq claimed recovery of Rs. 3,400 the disposal of these two applications, unfortunately, was delayed on account of the fact that the employer (Machinery Maintenance Department) preferred a Constitutional petition before the High Court.
The said petition, however, was dismissed for default. The application for restoration of the constitutional petition, both the workmen made applications to the learned Fifth Labour Court praying for amendment of their original claims. Mumtaz Ali in his application prayed that he may be allowed to amend his claim by the amount of Rs. 32,742 while Shahzad Tariq claimed that his original claims be amended to read as Rs. 38,608. Objec--tions to the revised claims and the amendment of the original claims was raised on behalf of the Machinery and Maintenance Sub- Division. No orders were passed on the two applications for the amendment of the original claims till the final orders on 9th November, 1981 were passed on the two main applications. By this the learned Labour Court allowed thin original claims of Mumtaz Ali and Shahzad Tariq. - On the same day, by separate orders passed on the applications for amendment of the claims the two amendment applications were rejected.
3. 1 have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, who appeared for the two workmen Mumtaz Ali and Shahzad Tariq and Mr. Syed Ahmed Farooqui, who appeared for the Government Department. The grievance of Mr. Ali Amjad was that while on the one hand the learned Labour Court had not allowed the workmen's applications for amendment of their original claims it had, in its main order, dated 9th November, 1981 discussed the additional claims, of the two workmen dismissed the same without giving an opportunity leading evidence in support of their claims on the other hand it was contended by Mr. Syed Ahmed Farooqui that no prejudice has been caused to the two workmen as in fact the learned Labour Court has not only given opportunity to the two workmen of leading evidence in support of their additional claims but the two workmen had in fact availed of this opportunity by leading evidence in support of their additional claim through affidavits and cross- examination of the depart--mental witnesses. It may be pointed out here that the claim to additional amount of back benefits,. Was resisted by the . Department on the ground that though the two workmen were re-instated in service and directed to resume their duties vide orders, dated 2nd May, 1974 and 14th May, 1974 they failed and avoided to do so and hence are not entitled to any back benefits after the said dates. On the other hand, it is contended by the two workmen, Mumtaz Ali and Shahzad Tariq that they were not only ready and willing to rejoin duties on receipt of their orders of reinstate--ment but they actually presented themselves before the authority for being taken back in 'service but they were not allowed to resume their duties. Separate applications to this effect have been tiled by both the workmen, Mumtaz Ali and Shahzad Tariq.
Since the learned Labour Court did not give an opportunity to the two workmen to lead evidence in this behalf and further rejected the applications of the two workmen for amendment of their original claims, the observations made by the learned Labour Court in its main order, dated 9th November, 1981 world appear to be at least inappropriate and also against the principle of q natural justice, I, therefore, direct that these observations in respect of the additional claim by the two workmen are without legal force and of no legal effect. The order in question should be deemed to be limited in its application to the original claims of the two workmen. The result is that it will be open to the two workmen, if they are so advised, to prefer fresh applications in respect of the period subsequent to that to which their original claims related. If any such claims or applications are made by the- two workmen it will be open to both parties to lead evidence in support or rebuttal of the claims, particularly whether the two workmen are entitled to any wages for the period of the dates of re-instatement orders by the Department, whether they were allowed to resume duty and also whether they have been gainfully employed else--where for any period. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.