I have heard Mr. Hassan Hameedi and Mr. Manzar Alam Advocates for the parties, fully in this case Executive Engineer, Mr. Wali Dad Mastoi is also present.
2. The facts of the case are that according to agreement dated 4-11-1985, 34$ workers were to be absorbed by the Executive Engineer. The relevant portion runs under:- Member (water) clarified that according to the agreement between the Authority and the Union.
Those work-charged employees who have been working for more than three years and whose services are likely to continue indefinitely are to be brought on regular cadre. He decided that all such work-charged employees will be made regular by 15th December, 1985
3. Section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, was agitated in the Labour Court Sukkur. At Sukkur the Labour Court is at present not functioning.
4. I passed the order, dated 17-12-1986, perused the application. The amount be deposited in the Labour Court till the decision of the Labour Court Then, again on the application of Mr. Hassan Hameedi another order, dated 28-1-1987 was passed.
The order is as under:- "Heard Mr. Hassan Hameedi, the learned Advocate for the respondents at length. As there is no Presiding Officer, at present in Labour Court at Sukkur, considerable difficulty is being experienced by the workers' whose wages are being deposited in the Labour Court . I find it necessary to re-call my order dated 17-12-1986. Hence, the management should pay the wages to the workers directly. The amount of wages already deposited in the Labour Court may also be distributed to the workers on identification of the workers by the learned Advocate for the respondents workers."
2. In the meantime the parties were rushed to the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for just and equitable decision after hearing the parties.
6. It will take about two months or three months for the Labour Court to decide the matter. In the meantime, Mr. Hassan Hameedi's contention's that workers who are 11 in numbers may be paid their salary by the Executive Engineer of the Department. The contention of Mr. Manzar Alam is that the money be deposited in the Labour Court and after the decision it may be paid to the relevant party. Now at present the workers are experiencing difficulty to make their both ends meet therefore it will be necessary to pay them their wages per month by the Department. The contention of Mr. Manzar Alam of depositing the amount is serving no useful purpose. It is proved that sections 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) of the WAPDA Act is no longer in operation.
7. Second objection raised by Mr. Manzar Alam is that C.B.A. Certificate was not produced. This objection was not raised in the written statement or in any other document. At present only equitable order would be that the amount to be paid to the eleven workers per month as the same become due. The amount deposited in the Labour Court be paid to the workers through the Union A.A. /962/ Lb. S