FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus MANAGER, AWAMI TEXTILE MILLS
ORDER
1. These two applications have been filed under section 51 of I.R.O. 1969. The claim of the applicants herein has been advanced on the basis of an order passed by this Court on 29/5/1986 in Applications Nos. 109 and 110 of 1985.
2. The applicants have asserted that after the orders of reinstatement as referred to above, the respondent did not pay their back benefits etc. The plea o f the respondent, in reply statement however, in nut‑shell, is that the applicants were paid off upto July 1985 and since the Mill was closed because of serious fire, all the employees of the Mill were terminated by a general notice. Their further plea is that in view of the fire aforesaid, these applicants arc not entitled to any amount as the Mill has sustained substantial loss. They are also said to have moved revision applications before the Hon'ble Tribunal in regard to the criminal proceedings brought by the applicants in this Court for non‑implementation of the reinstatement orders referred to above.
3. The applicants have appeared as their own witness, while on behalf of the respondent one Mr. Abdul Haleem was tendered in evidence. I have then heard Mr. Mohd Bashir Awan, Counsel for the Applicants, and Mr. Mahboob Ahmed Rizvi, learned Advocate for the Respondent. Since both the cases are based on common facts and grounds, these will be disposed of by this common order.
4. It has been contended by Mr. Rizvi that the applicants had also filed criminal complaints in this Court for non‑implementation of the reinstatement orders and the maintainability of such complaints was assailed in the revision Applications Nos. HYD‑315 and 316 of 1980 before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Tribunal has since quashed the proceedings filed in this Court by order dated 18‑8‑1987. He submits that in view of this order of the Hon'ble Tribunal present applications under section 51 of IRO 1969 would also not be competent and so the same be dismissed. His further submission is that admittedly there was a serious fire in the Mill on 28‑8-1985 and so the Mill was closed for good. Accordingly, the claims as put forward by the applicants are not sustainable in law. However, as pleaded in the affidavit in evidence 'of the respondent, the applicants would be entitled only to the gratuity and annual leave benefits and no more. Mr. Awan, on the other hand, submits that the applicants were ordered to be reinstated in service and such order was not admittedly implemented. Since the order of reinstatement referred to above was never assailed before any other forum, it attained fidality and so it has to be implemented. Since the respondent has not acted upon the directions contained to the said order the present applications are quite competent and the claim advanced therein is quite justified.
5. I have gone through the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon by Mr. Rizvi and I feel that these orders do in no way affect the present proceedings. In fact the Hon ble Tribunal had quashed the only criminal proceedings against the respondent on a highly technical ground that there was no time limit in the reinstatement orders for the implementations thereof. The present petition however are only in respect of the benefits accrued to the applicants i accordance with the reinstatement orders referred to above, and which order had legally attained finality because such orders were never questioned before any Appellate or Revisional Authority or before any other Court. The submission of Mr. Rizvi is accordingly repelled.
6. Reverting to the merits of these cases, the claim of the applicants is detailed in paragraph 6 of their respective applications. Mr. Rizvi's submission that the applicants cannot claim any amount from the date of the reinstatement orders is misconceived in view of the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1985 SCMR 1882 in a case decided by the undersigned in the year 1974. Since the orders of reinstatement had not been honoured and implemented the clock shall continue and the applicants would be well within their rights to claim the entire amount which would be payable to them till such time orders are implemented in true spirit.
7. As to the claim itself, it is stated herein that the wages as claimed by the applicants for the years 1982 are inadmissible because such a claim is for the period prior to their termination. This claim is accordingly rejected. However, the claim from August 1985 till February 1987 as mentioned in item Nos. 2, 3 and 4 specified in paragraph 6 of the petitions, is quite justified because the same has not been disproved by the respondent. The increases as allowed by the Government towards Cost of Living on 1‑7‑1985 and 1‑7‑1986 are legally payable to the applicants and it is immaterial if the Mill remained closed during this period. Accordingly, the claims as specified at item Nos. 3 and 4 in paragraph 6 of the petitions are quite legal and so the same are allowed.
8. In so far as the claims of bonus and house rent are concerned, the applicants have not substantiated the same and so they would not be entitled to the same. The applicants have led no evidence to prove that the respondent earned profits and distributed bonus to any worker. Similarly they also did not prove that the house rent was ever paid to any worker and at what rate. Accordingly, these claims regarding bonus and house rent cannot be allowed.
9. In view of the above, both the applications are allowed to the extent of their respective claims in respect of item Nos. 2, 3 and 4 mentioned in paragraph 6 of their petitions amounting in all to Rs. 31,376 and Rs. 8,275.
10. A.E/1122/Lb. S Order accordingly.