' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J---Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has impugned the legality and propriety of order dated 12-2-2004 passed by Sindh Labour Court No, 1, Karachi whereby application moved by respondent No,2 worker under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for recovery of back-benefits, which were already ordered to be paid to him vide order dated 17-12-1999 when he was ordered to be reinstated in service, was allowed.
2. Brief facts emerging from the contents of this petition are; that respondent No,2, who was permanently employed in the Petitioner Establishment was dismissed from service on 1-10-1997 on the allegation of misconduct. The respondent No,2, challenged his dismissal. Ultimately vide order dated 17-12-1999 he was ordered to be reinstated in service with back-benefits. Yet it was observed in the said order that Management/Establishment would not be debarred from conducting fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent No,2 was reinstated in service. However, it appears that none of the parties were satisfied with the above orders, and challenged the same before the erstwhile Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Management was aggrieved with the order of reinstatement, while the worker was dissatisfied with the holding of enquiry. Ultimately by a common order dated 23-4-2001 the appeal filed by the petitioner-Establishment was dismissed whereas the appeal of respondent worker was allowed. The petitioner challenged the said order in C.P. No,D-1866/2001. During the pendency of the said petition, respondent worker filed application under section 51 of the I.R.O. 1969, since repealed, for recovery of back-benefits, which were already ordered to be paid to him vide order dated 17-12-1999 when he was ordered to be reinstated in service. The petitioner-Establishment contested the said application mainly on the ground that as the petitioner had already filed Constitutional petition in the High Court, as such during the pendency of the said petition, the application filed by respondent worker under section 51 of I.R.O.
1969 was not maintainable. However, while the said application under section 51 was still sub judice, the C.P. Filed by the petitioner-Establishment in this Court was dismissed vide order dated 13-8-2003. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 13-8-2003 in the Honourable Supreme Court through Civil Petition for leave to appeal which was also dismissed.
3. Thereafter the application filed by respondent worker under section 51 of the I.R.O. 1969 was allowed vide order dated 12-2-2004 which was initially challenged by the petitioner through an appeal under section 46 of the I.R.O. 1969, however the maintainability of such appeal having been challenged by the respondent, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and with the consent of learned counsel for the respondent worker, the appeal was converted into petition vide order dated 7-2-2005.
4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.
5. From the perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the order of reinstatement and payment of back-benefits to respondent worker was challenged by the petitioner before the then Sindh ,Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi in Appeal No,Kar-23/2000 which was dismissed vide order dated 23-4-2001 and the petitioner challenged the said order in this Court through C.P. No,D- 1866 of 2001 which was also dismissed vide order dated 13-8-2003 so also Civil petition for leave to appeal bearing No,766-K of 2003 by the Honourable Supreme Court by its order dated 23-7-2004.
6. In view of the fact that the matter right from the stage of Labour Court till the apex Court already having been decided against the petitioner-Establishment and inlavour of respondent worker, the present petition which is based on the same facts and grounds which already stood considered and determined, is nothing but a method of dragging the poor worker in unwarranted and frivolous litigation. Each and every point including entitlement of respondent worker to the back-benefits have already been elaborately dismissed and after assigning cogent reasons, well-reasoned findings were recorded by the Labour and the Appellate Courts. No perversity, infirmity, error of law, transgression of jurisdiction or, lack of jurisdiction has been noticed or pointed out to warrant any interference and/or to declare the impugned orders illegal, invalid or coram non judice. In the circumstances, there seems hardly any justification to exercise extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition being absolutely meritless is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine along with listed application.
7. As observed in the preceding paragraphs, this manifestly misconceived petition has been 'filed with the sole purpose of causing undue harassment to the respondent/worker for malicious reasons, so as to deny/delay the legal dues of the respondent, as the issues raised in the present petition have already been considered, elaborately discussed and well-reasoned findings have been recorded thereon. Besides, on account of such frivolous and baseless litigation, the precious time of this Court has also been wasted. In the given circumstances, the petitioner is liable to cost.
Accordingly a cost of Rs,10,000 is also imposed upon the petitioner to be paid to respondent worker within two weeks of the passing of this detailed order.
' Above are the reasons for short order passed on 21-2-2006.