' These are three revision applications under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which are identical on points of facts and law, whereby the order, dated 8-9-1999, passed by the learned Labour Court No,IV was challenged.
2. The above revisions were admitted to regular hearing to consider the point whether the applications, filed in the Labour Court on 28-9-1995 did abate or not?
3. It appears that earlier an application was filed for abatement of three Applications filed under section 25-A, bearing Nos,20, 21 and 22 of 1995. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the said application for abatement by his order, dated 29-9-1997. The applicant establishment, instead of filing a revision in this Tribunal, filed a Constitution Petition bearing No,296 of 1998, which was allowed with the observation that the matter be decided after hearing the parties, as the petitioner (the applicant herein) was not present on that day.
4. Respondents/workers, present in the Court, submit that they are poor workers without any job for a long time and have no means to engage a counsel. I had, therefore, to take extra pains to look into the R&P by myself. The learned advocate for the applicant/management did not have complete record with him since he filed scanty papers with the memo. Of revision application.
5. The point on which the revisions were admitted is whether the provisions of section 2-A. Service Tribunal Act, 1973 are attracted to the present case. While looking to the R&P, it came to may notice that earlier Application No,11 of 1993 for reinstatement was filed by Ilyas and so also by others separately which were allowed in 1994 with back benefits. The application of the respondents herein for reinstatement alongwith back benefit were allowed by order, dated 12-5-1994. The relevant observation reads as under:- ' I, therefore, hold that the respondents have mala fidely retrenched the applicant from service and he is entitled to the back benefits for the period of unemployment as there is no evidence on record that the applicant was gainfully employed some where else. Findings accordingly. "
6. The workers were reinstated but the applicant/management failed to pay full benefits. Instead, the management filed appeal Nos,347 and 351 of 1994 against the grant of back benefits, which were dismissed by the learned Chairman of this Tribunal by his order, dated 13-3-1995. But the management again failed to pay back benefits to the workers.
7. Therefore, the above said Application Nos,20, 21 and 22 of 1995 for implementation of the earlier order, dated 12-5-1994, confirmed in appeal, as to the back benefits were filed. The learned counsel for the applicant/management submits that the respondents/workers should have filed the applications before the Service Tribunal.
8. The rights have already been decided by a decision, earlier to the amendment in the Service Tribunal Act, gazetted on 10-6-1997. The argument, referred to above, is no more open to be agitated before the Service Tribunal. The respondents herein are not seeking any rights which require determination. It is implementation by way of execution of the earlier order passed as long back as 1994, as also confirmed in appeal on 13-3-1995. The question of applicability of section 2-A does not arise in the case. I, therefore, find myself in agreement with the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer, in his order, dated 8-9-1999, which has been impugned in the revisions.
9. The question of the non applicability of section 2-A, Service Tribunal Act, with the above observations, is fore-closed, as the same was passed after hearing the parties as ordered on 25-3- 1999 by the Hon'ble High Court, in a constitution petition filed against the order.
10. The very facts that the respondents were reinstated and some amount towards back benefits were paid to them itself shows that the management had accepted the earlier verdict given by the learned Presiding Officer against which appeals, filed in this Tribunal, by the applicant/management herein having been dismissed, the order passed in May, 1994 had attained finality.
11. Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi, however, submitted that the Hon'ble High Court observed to decide the matter after the parties lead their evidence, but he was not allowed to lead any evidence. In fact, his side was closed. The respondents submit that applicants herein failed to appears on five/six dates to cross-examine the respondents. The Labour Court was, therefore, compelled to close the side of the applicants herein. However, since the amount of back benefits is disputed inasmuch as the assertion of Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi is that according to him, it was Rs,8,000 which has already been paid. But according to the workers, the actual amount due is much higher than what has been paid to them. I, therefore, remand this case only on the point of determining the quantum of the amount of back benefits, which the respondents/workers are entitled on the basis of the Judgment, dated 12-5-1994, as also observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh vide order, dated 25-3-1999.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant/management submits that the implementation cannot be made under section 25-A. According to him, it could, however, be made under section 51. I have seen that the applications have been filed under section 25-A read with section 51 of I.R.O., 1969.
The objection of learned counsel is misconceived. However, let the learned Labour Court treat the applications (before the learned Labour Court) as made under section 51 and proceed with them according to law.
13. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,IV at Karachi on 4-12-1999 as already fixed. As the workers have already filed their affidavits-in- evidence. They may be cross-examined by the management on 4-12-1999. On that very day, the applicants' Manager, whom Mr. Ashfaq H. Rizvi wants to produce as witness, will also be examined and cross-examined, since no affidavit-in-evidence has been filed. The matter will proceed day to day and as the matter is hanging fire since, 1994, no adjournment should be granted and the matter be decided before the commencement of the winter vacation.
14. Before parting with the matter. I would like to observe that the case before the Service Tribunal as urged by the counsel, is only with regard to the reinstatement after second dismissal and not with regard to the matter, which has already been decided as long back as on 1994 and has no relevance to the issue before me.
15. The revision applications are disposed of accordingly and so the miscellaneous applications, as having become infructuous.