These two appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned VIth Labour Court dismissing their applications for reinstate--ment in service with back benefits.
2. Appellant Inayat Khan was employed as an Opener Fitter with the respondent while appellant Umaid Ali Khan was engaged by the respondent as an Assistant Fitter. The case of the appellants is that they were working with the respondents since 1965 and hence they were permanent workmen, that they were dismissed from service on 28-6-1978 by the respondents without any show-cause notice or holding an inquiry, that on the matter being brought to the notice of the Labour Authorities, the respondents agreed to hold an enquiry which was to be held by Allah Din, but instead the enquiry was held by one Maulvi Nazeer Ahmad and in consequence of the partisan report, they were again dismissed from service by order dated 5-8-1978.
3. It is an admitted position that the respondent is a seasonal Ginning Factory and it works for less than 9 months in a year. It further appears that the services of the workers, including the appellants, are freshly engaged every season. As such the appellants are temporary workers and cannot be said to be permanent workmen. The conten--tion of the appellants that the enquiry should have been held by Allah Din, as was mutually agreed and not by Maulvi Nazeer Ahmad, has no force since Allah Din had proceeded on leave and the respondents had no other alternative but to hold the enquiry through some one else. There is nothing to indicates that the proceedings held by Maulvi Nazeer Ahmad were not fair or impartial or he did not give full opportunity to the appellants to represent their case.
4. A fatal defect, however, in the case of the appellants is that no grievance notice in respect of the dismissal order of 5-8-1978 was given by them to the respondents. No doubt, the appellants had served a grievance notice upon the respondents but that notice is dated 20-7-1978, and it is in respect of the first order of dismissal, before the second order of dismissal was issued. The first dismissal order admittedly was not given effect in consequence of the intervention of the Labour Depart--ment on the representation of the appellants and a proper domestic enquiry was held by Maulvi Nazeer Ahmad. The appellant however, admittedly gave no grievance notice to the respondents to respect of the final order of dismissal dated 5-8-1978, which effectively terminated their services and against which they are aggrieved. As such, they could not file, in the absence of such notice, an application to the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I would e accordingly dismiss these two appeals.