1. ' Petitioner has filed this petition under section 51 for the recovery of 3443-50 rupees as arrears of Land Revenue. A notice was issued to the respondent who appeared and raised certain preliminary objections. Those objections were overruled vide my order dated 26-6-1975, in the file. That order may be read as a part of this judgment.
2. ' Petitioner was dismissed on 16.6-1974, but he was re-instated by the Junior Labour Court on 31-1- 1975, with back wages and that order of re-instatement was confirmed by this Court on 26-2-75.
3. After his dismissal he was paid Rs, 1,125.45 on 29-6-75 and wages medical leave for 14 days, 11 years gratuity on basic pay of Rs,
174. Order of Junior Labour Court was announced on 31-1-1975.
4. Contention of the Management before the Junior Labour Court as well as before this Court was that petitioner resigned of his own but that contention was neither accepted by the Junior Labour Court nor by this Court and that is why petitioner was reinstated with back wages. His dismissal letter is on the file and it is dated 15,6-75. The alleged resignation which is not in his hand is also dated 15-6-75. He joined service on 8-2-75, in consequence to the orders of the Junior Labour Court. He worked for 3 days when the Management, while playing fraud on this Court by withholding facts got a stay order. There could be no stay order after the petitioner had resumed duty according to the orders of the Junior Labour Court.
5. ' On confirmation of the order of the Junior Labour Court on 26.2-75, petitioner went to resume duty and made an application to that effect. That application is Exh. D. A. On the file. It is to the effect that petitioner should be given duty. It contains no order on behalf of the employer Exh. D. B. Is a memorandum on behalf of the Labour Officer of the respondent concern dated 1-3-75 I e. The same date. Petitioner was informed that post of Laboratory Assistant has been abolished, therefore his services were placed at the disposal of duplex cutter section. He was further asked by this memorandum to intimate in writing to the Labour Officer within 3 days of the receipt of this letter regarding his willingness to work in that section. Exh. D. C. Is a Photostat copy of an attendance register by which respondent Management has tried to prove that petitioner did work in that section for 5 days i,e, from 1st of March till 6th March, 1975. On the basis of this attendance petitioner was again charge-sheeted for a misconduct of absence for more than 10 days after 6th March. This is admitted by R. W. 2 Captain Hafeez Ullah Labour Officer of the respondent concern that for these 5 days i,e, from 1st March to 6th March with one day as rest (5th March being rest)
6. Petitioner used to loiter about in the Mills premises as there was no work assigned to him.
7. ' Claim of the petitioner is for bonus for 2-1 months 5% workers participation fund, double increment w. e. f.
8. 1.2-74, annual increment w. e. f. 1-2-75, allowance of Rs, 50 P.M. w. e. f. 8-6-74 till 1-4-75, the date of presentation of this petition, Respondent has produced his Cashier who admits the claim of the petitioner only to the extent of wages for 8-2-75 to 11-2-75, and wages for the period 1-3-75 to 6-3-
75. Amount of bonus is also admitted by him. Double increment according to the settlement is also admitted by the Cashier of the respondent as due to the petitioner. Cost of Living Allowance from 8-2-75 to 11-2-75 both days inclusive is also admitted to be due to the petitioner. For the rest of the claim learned counsel of the respondent has tried to make this Court believe that as the petitioner resigned on 15-6-75 therefore his claim for wages from 16-6-74 to 1-4-75 is not due to him. Issue of resignation was decided by the Junior Labour Court and that decision was confirmed by me.
9. Petition was dismissed but he was re-instated by the Junior Labour Court with back wages. Now this issue cannot be opened again and again. Management could have gone in writ against that order and could get a finding to the contrary but as they have not done so their plea of resignation would not be acceptable.
10. ' Case of the petitioner regarding his dismissal and payment of back wages is a typical case of unfair labour practice on the part of employer. It is fit case to be brought to the notice of the representative of the tripartite conference so that the parties may come to know that how certain employers play with their employees and respect legal orders of Courts. Either they do not obey the orders at all or they circumvent them and the Labour laws.
11. ' In the instant case petitioner was victimised by way of dismissal for the reason that he was courageous enough to appear as a witness of a co-workman against the employer. That co- workman was ordered to be reinstated, but was never re-instated, petitioner was also ordered to be re-instated as far back as on 31-1-75. He has neither been be re-instated nor his back wages have been paid. Employer got a stay order by playing fraud on the Court. The order of the Junior Labour Court was confirmed by this Court. Employer abolished the job of the petitioner. He was a Laboratory Assistant. It was done simply to circumvent the orders and the law and to frustrate the petitioner otherwise job of a Laboratory Assistant is a must where there is a Laboratory. In a straw board mills laboratory is a must. Respondent was never given any duty when he asked for the same by way of an application. He was asked to give his willingness to work in another section, so question of his signing the attendance register for 5 days is not correct. Petitioner's version that he was forced to sign attendance register is very correct. Now he has been dismissed an a false charge of absence.
12. ' Either the Legislature may give full powers of dismissal without an enquiry with 6 months or 4 months wages to the employee or the penal provisions against the employer may be made cognisable at least at the report of the Labour authorities or the labour Courts. Poor employees can not pursue complaint against the employer for an indefinite period for a lengthy procedure or the Courts may be given summary powers to get implementation of their orders.
13. ' Petitioner has not been paid his back wages for the reason that he has not deposited Rs, 1125 which were paid to him by way of gratuity, wages for 15 days and Medical leave. I wonder why employer insists on this payment. This claim is not included in the present petition. This is also a lame excuse of the employer just to frustrate the petitioner, detail of the amount due to the petitioner from the employer is given in Exh. P. B. Petitioner was drawing basic pay of Rs, 174 p.m. In June, 1974 he has claimed this pay from Ist July, 1974 to 1-4-1975, i,e, the day of filing this application. Two increments w. e. f. 1-2-74 are also due to him, Rs, 50 Cost of Living Allowance per month is also claimed by the petitioner. His total waged comes to Rs, 2,564 and in addition to this statutory bonus of 2i months wages is admitted by the respondent witness himself and it comes to Rs, 202 so in all petitioner is entitled for the payment of Rs, 3,443.50. This amount has not been paid by the respondent. It is hereby ordered that this amount may be recovered as arrears of land Revenue. Copy of this order may be sent to the Collector (Revenue) te. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala for the recovery of this amount as arrears of land revenue from the respondent. After its recovery it may be paid to the petitioner.