' The learned Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad had rendered an order on 30-5-1994, maintaining an earlier order dated 13-9-1993, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, under section 17 of the Act, and dismissing Muhammad Shafi's appeal.
2. The litigation has a cheered history. Muhammad Shafi was Line Jobber in the respondent-mill and he declined to work in the 3rd shift, to which he was transferred. He remained absent for more than ten days, with effect from 23-1-1979. An enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service on 4-2-1979. The order was challenged in the Labour Court, Faisalabad and, on 9-9- 1979, the learned Labour Court quashed the aforesaid order and directed that Muhammad Shafi be reinstated in service. The enquiry had been initiated without service of charge-sheet and obtaining explanation of the worker and was held to be illegal and against the spirit of Standing Order 15. An appeal against the order dated 9-9-1979 of the Labour Court, filed by the General Manager, Lyallpur Cotton Mills, Faisalabad was dismissed by this Tribunal, then presided over by Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi. It was held that re-enquiry allowed by the Labour Court was an act not untenable in law. It was further held that if the result of the second enquiry was in favour of the employee, he would get the back benefits, but otherwise not. Muhammad Shafi again approached the Labour Court for a direction to mark him present from 19-9-1979 to 24-11- 1980. Such a prayer was turned down by the Labour Court, as according to the Court it did not fall within the four corners of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This Tribunal had on 21-6-1982 allowed the appeal filed by Muhammad Shafi and held that there was no good ground for treating the period in question as leave without pay and that the employee was entitled to be treated on duty, and as he had not laid claim to wages for the said period, no direction in that regard was made. When, however, the employee re-agitated the matter, this Tribunal passed another order on 30-6-1982, modifying the Labour Court's order and allowing the employee the back benefits.
3. Office orders were passed by the mill management on 19-3-1983 and 13-4-1983 to the effect that Muhammad Shafi would be treated to be on duty (in the 3rd shift), from 17-9-1979 to 24-11-1980 and from 1-1-1981 to 21-7-1981.
4. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Sheikh, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, on 31-1-1988, accepted the appeal filed by Rao Muhammad Shafi under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the other one filed by Lyallpur Cotton Mills, Faisalabad, setting aside the Labour Officer's order dated 18-8-1987, awarding an amount of Rs,8,988 as delayed wages, for the period 17-9-1979 to 24-11-1980. The case was remitted back with the direction that all the issues embracing the entire lot of controversial allegations, arising out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, be formulated and the case be decided afresh.
5. Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah, ' Authority' under the Payment of Wages Act, decided the matter on 13-9-1993, and the learned Labour Court, Faisalabad affirmed the findings of the 'Authority', dismissing Rao Muhammad Shafi's appeal, by a decision dated 30-5-1994. This decision is the subject-matter of the present revision petition, filed by Rao Muhammad Shafi.
6. At the very out-set it may be stated that the petitioner does not press his claim for wages from 4-2-1979 to 9-9-1979, which claim has been treated by the ' Authority' to be time-barred, and the finding has been endorsed by the learned Labour Court. Arrears of emoluments, for the period 17- 9-1979 to 24-11-1980, have been awarded in the amount of Rs,8,988. The employee claims compensation ten times, this amount, maintaining that he has suffered a considerably and has also spent a lot on the long-drawn litigation. It may be mentioned here that the respondent is prepared to part with the original amount of Rs,8,988, but he is declining to make payment of the amount of compensation, claimed by the employee. I have given the matter my careful consideration. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that although the litigation has stretched over an unusually long period but responsible for the same is not the establishment exclusively, as would appear from the judgment dated 21-6-1982 of this Tribunal, and understandably the employee had originally not claimed the wages for the period in question and the Tribunal, therefore, had preferred not to make a direction in that regard. Actually back benefits for the period 17-9-1979 to 24-11-1979 even had not been awarded though the direction made was to the effect that the employee would be treated to be on duty for the said period. He had actually himself prayed that he be marked present for the said period, from which it followed that he was only keen that for the period in dispute he should not be treated to be absent from duty and there should occur no interruption in the continuity of his period of duty. Later on, however, he claimed the wages, and modifying the order, this Tribunal on 30-6-1982 awarded to him back benefits also.
7. By no stretch of reasoning, however, it could be maintained by Muhammad Shafi that the litigation had remained pending over that long period, by reason of the attitude or the conduct of the establishment. He was himself at fault for not laying claim to the wages originally, and he could then not justify his request to claim compensation ten times or even less than that.
8. He had resisted his transfer to the night shift from the day shift, although the establishment had a prerogative to effect such a change in the duty hours of the employees. He had not performed duty but had remained absent for a period of about 14 months from 17-9-1979 to 24-11-1980 and earlier from 4-2-1979 to 9-9-1979. When he had rendered no service to the mill, in actual practice, he was indeed not entitled to the wages, but this Tribunal held that he was not to blame for his absence from duty, and he was, therefore, allowed wages for the period. The mill management did not agitate the matter further in any higher forum, and the aforesaid finding may be taken to have become final. But the employee, as already said, could not maintain that the establishment was responsible for his sufferings and he was, therefore, entitled to compensatory amount, and that too ten times the original claim. I do not find any justification at all to interfere with the impugned decision dated 30-5-1994 of the Labour Court. The revision petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.