SYED ABDUL KHALIQ (MEMBER).--- This order shall dispose of a petition under section 22A(8)(g) read with section 15 of I.R.0, 1969 since repealed (now section 25(8)(g) read with section 17 of I.R.A., 2008), filed by the petitioners along with an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F)
Regulations, 1973 against the respondent before the learned Member NIRC at Karachi Camp on 10- 11-2000 which was transferred to this Bench of Commission on 23-8-2004 for disposal. The petitioners have averred in the petition that they are permanent employees of the respondent's establishment and performing their jobs as workmen for the last many years. The respondent's Factory is registered under the Factories Act, 1934 and biscuits are manufacturing therein.
According to petitioners, more than 50 workers are working in the Factory and the west Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders), Ordinance, 1968 is fully applicable to it.
The petitioners are office-bearers and members of the "International Biscuits Workers Union" which is CBA. An industrial dispute arose between the union and establishment of the respondent after expiry of settlement. When the conciliation proceedings were going on, some of the office-bearers agreed to accept "Golden Hand-Shake" offered by the management of the respondent for closure of the establishment but the petitioners not only opposed the closure of the establishment but also opposed the offer of "Golden Hand-Shake Scheme". On this, the management of the respondent started to compel the petitioners to tender resignations or accept the offer. The management also extended threats of removal of petitioners from employment by closing down the establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court as required under Standing Order 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which is a clear act of unfair labour practice. According to petitioners, the closure of the establishment and the offer of "Golden Hand-Shake" by the respondent are acts of mala fide intention and are nothing but to do away the said union of the petitioners and the industrial dispute pending before the area Conciliator regarding demands of the petitioner's union. It is alleged that when the petitioners refused to tender resignations from employments and to accept the offer of "Golden Hand-Shake", the management of the respondent extended threats to them for their removal from service. The petitioners have expressed their apprehension that as they have refused to tender their resignations and to accept the offer of Golden Hand-Shake, therefore, the respondent's management is now bent upon to close-down the whole establishment, lock-out, gate-stop, retrench, terminate and dismiss the petitioners from service. The petitioners have prayed for the relief disclosed by them in their own words in the prayer clause of the petition which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:- "It is, prayed that this honourable Commission, may be pleased to deal with the acts of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent in a manner laid down in law and be further pleased to hold that the closing down the whole establishment and thereby removal from employment in any manner would be an act of unfair labour practice. Further be pleased warn the respondent that if the establishment closed down without prior permission then the case will be dealt with under section 53f(I-A) of I.R.O., 1969 any other relief/reliefs deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case be also allowed. Ad interim orders are prayed in the interest of justice."
2. The respondent's management contested the case by filing written statement to main petition and rejoinder to stay application denying all the allegations levelled by the petitioners against respondent by stating that the president and General Secretary along with other office-bearers and members of the petitioners Union have left the service in accordance with law and collected their all legal dues, therefore, the petitioner's union is an illegally constituted body and it is not a CBA under the law, until a new election of the union is held and its new office-bearers are elected/appointed. It is alleged that the petitioners have no locus standi to claim themselves to be workers of the union or claim the union as CBA. According to respondent, its management has always respected the laws that are applicable to establishment. The respondent's management has stated that the petitioners are in the employment of the respondent, therefore, the allegation of closure of the establishment in violation of the relevant provisions of the law is false and petition being pre-mature is liable to be dismissed. It is added that neither the petitioners were pressurized to tender resignation from their employment nor they were compelled to accept the offer of "Golden Hand-Shake". It is alleged that the petition of the petitioners is false, baseless and concocted with ulterior motives only to black-mail the management of the respondent. It is stated that the respondent-management is law abiding organization and it will not take action against any employee except in due course of law. In the last, the respondent's management has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
3. It will not be out of place to mention here that after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties On the maintainability of the petition, my learned predecessor-in-office dismissed the petition of the petitioners along with two complaints of petitioner Muhammad Nawaz on 29-5- 2006 on the ground of its being infructuous but on appeal, the honourable Full Bench NIRC, Islamabad vide its order, dated 10-2-2007 setting aside the Order passed by my learned predecessor-in-office on 29-05-2006 remanded the case back to this Bench of Commission with the directions to decide the matter in dispute afresh after affording opportunity to both the parties by producing evidence.
4. On 29-10-2007 petitioner Muhammad Nawaz filed his affidavit-in-evidence. Thereafter a number of opportunities were provided to the petitioner for his cross-examination but he could not be cross-examined fore one reason or the other. However, petitioner Muhammad Nawaz was partly cross-examined on 5-1-2010 and case was adjourned to 16-2-2010 on the request of the learned counsel for the respondent. On this date the cross was completed on the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners did not examine any witness in support of their case. However, they examined only petitioner Muhammad Nawaz for himself and as their attorney for themselves and close their side.
5. The respondent's management neither examined its representative/attorney nor it examined any witness. However, the respondent relied upon the documents with which the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz was confronted in his cross-examination and placed the same on record of the case.
6. I have gone through the available record of the case and written arguments filed by the parties in support of their respective claims/contentions carefully and also heard Mr. Naseebullah Sagi Tareen Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan Sawati Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were terminated from service by the management of the respondent on 20-5-2000 but the termination order of the respondent was suspended by the learned. Member NIRC Karachi Bench vide order dated 24-5-2000 and that the learned 3rd Labour Court vide order dated 30-4-2001 accepting the application of the respondent under Standing Order 11-A of Standing Orders Ordnance, 1968 and granting permission to the management of respondent to close down the establishment with effect from 30-4-2001 declared the termination order, dated 20-5-2000 as illegal and directed the management of the respondent to pay all legal dues to petitioners terminated illegally, after setting their account, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service and to receive their dues/full back-benefits w.e.f, 20-5-2000 to 30-4-2001. The order, dated 20-5-2000 whereby the petitioners were terminated from service, the order of the learned Member NIRC Karachi Bench passed on 24-5-2000 whereby the termination order issued by the management of the respondent in respect of petitioners on 20-5-2000 was suspended and the order passed by the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub on 30-4-2001 whereby the respondent's management was allowed to close down the establishment have been filed by the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz along with his affidavit-in-evidence and are available on record as Annexure A/7, Ann. Aw/1 and A/12 respectively. The respondent's management also relied upon A/12 and placed the same on record as Exh.R/3.
8. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the termination order, dated 20-5-2000 passed by the management of the respondent against the petitioners is void, mala fide and without any lawful authority because it was passed not only in defiance of injunction issued by the learned Member NIRC Karachi Bench on 10-4-2000 but also prior to obtaining permission of the concerned Labour court for closure of establishment. In this connection, he placed reliance on a case reported in 1992 PLC 136 (Lahore High Court). It will not be out of place to mention here that the termination order dated 20-5-2000 issued by the management of the respondent against the petitioners has not only been declared as illegal by the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub vide its order dated 30-4-2001 but also by the honourable High Court of Balochistan vide judgment dated 30-5-2003. I am also of the same view that the termination order dated 20-5-2000 issued by the management of the respondent against the petitioners is illegal and without any lawful authority.
The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that although the petitioners accepted the dues but in spite of that they can agitate the matter before a Court of law for their removal from employments, reinstatement in service and claim of back-benefits. He relied upon a case reported in 1984 PLC 359 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Blaochistan.) wherein it has been held:--- "The question as to whether or not an employee could agitate his grievance with regard to removal from service after he had accepted the dues would very much depend the facts and Circumstances of each case. The crux of the matter in each case would be as to whether or not the acceptance of the dues was coupled with a settlement out side the Court specifically indicating that such settlement was arrived at by burying all the disputes and claims, admitting the fact of removal from service as bona fide and just act. But in such cases, where the. Employee had not demanded the dues in token of his having dropped his grievance of removal from service or a final settlement of all the dispute etc; it would be deemed that by accepting the dues on the directions of the employer or even on his own demand, but without accepting the act of removal from service as a legal and valid act, he could still agitate the matter successfully before a Court of law as the cause of action accruing to him still subsisted. (P. 362) A."
9. I have carefully gone through the contents of the case reported in 1984 PLC 359 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Balochistan) and came to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of this case are distinguishable and not identical and applicable to the case in hand as in the case relied upon, the appellant Ghulam Nabi who was a Driver in the respondent's organization had not collected the dues voluntarily but on the directions of the respondent (employer) only to avoid his displeasure and some other complications on the part of the respondent. Besides, in the case relied upon, the appellant accepted the dues and settled the matter outside the Court whereas in the case in hand, the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub vide order, dated 30-4-2001 (A/12 or Exh.R/3) while permitting the respondent's management to close down the establishment w.e.f, 30-4-2001 also directed the management of respondent to pay all the legal dues to 31 workmen (petitioners) terminated illegally after setting their account and then the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub delivered the cross-cheques to the petitioners including petitioner Muhammad Nawaz in respect of their outstanding dues deposited by the management of the respondent in the court but at the time of payment of outstanding dues and other benefits to the petitioners, they did not raise any objection with regard to payment of dues to them and their termination from or reinstatement in service. This fact has also admitted by petitioner Muhammad Nawaz in his cross-examination and further stated that the Labour Court allowed the closure of the establishment w.e.f, 30-4-2001 while the dues were paid to them up to 19-5-2001. It is on record that the payment of dues was made to petitioners by the learned presiding officer of 3rd Labour Court at Hub according to his order dated 30-4-001 (Exh.R/3) vide Exh.R/5, Exh.R/6 and Exh.R/7. It is also pertinent to note that order dated 30- 4-2001 (Ex.R/3) has not been set-aside by any of the superior Courts.
10. The learned counsel for petitioners, in support of his contentions, also relied upon cases reported in (1) 2005 PLC 36, (2) 1997 PLC 451, (3) 2006 SCM R 688, (4) PLD 1971 Supreme Court, 61 (5)
PLD 1971 Supreme Court 72, (6) 1984 PLC 363 (Lahore High Court) (7) 1992 PLC 136 (Lahore High Court), (8) 1992 PLC 143, and (9) 1997 SCM R 193. Theses cases relate-to contempt of court matters or the matters relating to orders passed by the employers in defiance of injunctions issued by the Courts in favour of the employees and against the employers. As it has already been held supra that the order of removal of the petitioners from service passed by the management of the respondent on 20-5-2000 in violation of the injunction order of the court passed on 10-4-2000 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent was illegal and without any lawful authority, therefore, the above referred authorities from (1) to (9) need no further discussion.
11. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that mere acceptance of legal dues by the petitioners would not amount to waiver so as to stop them from challenging order of respondent with regard to their removal from service because the order of the respondent dated 20-5-2000 whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated without any reason and also without prior permission of the concerned Labour Court has already been declared as illegal not only by the concerned Labour Court but also by the honourable High Court, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to all their back-benefits and reinstatement in service. Admittedly the termination order of petitioners issued by the management of the respondent was declared as illegal not only by the 3rd Labour Court at Hub vide Order dated 30-4-2001 but also by the honourable High court of Balochistan vide order dated 30-5-2003 and it is also an admitted fact that the respondent's management closed down the establishment without the prior permission of the said learned labour Court but in spite of all these facts neither the closure of the respondent's establishment can be called in question because the said learned Labour Court condoning the delay allowed the management of respondent to close down the establishment w.e.f, 30-4-2001 nor the legality or illegality of the order of removal of the petitioners can be agitated at this stage because all the petitioners were paid their legal dues by the learned presiding officer of the 3rd Labour Court vide Exh.R/5 to Exh.R/7 with reference to his order dated 30-4-2001 (Exh.R/3) and in compliance with the judgment of the honourable High Court of Balochistan passed with the consent of the parties on 20-6-2003 (Exh.R/4), therefore, the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners can not be made applicable to the case in hand.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that although the management of the respondent terminated the petitioners from service vide order dated 24-5-2000 and closed down the establishment without obtaining permission from the concerned labour Court but the application under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 filed by the management of respondent was allowed and the management was permitted to close down the establishment w.e.f, 30-4-2001 subject to payment of legal dues to petitioners after setting their account. According to him, all the legal dues/benefits were paid to each petitioners including petitioner Muhammad Nawaz by the respondent through the learned presiding officer of the 3rd Labour Court at Hub in shape of cross-cheques and at the time of payment of dues/benefits, none of the petitioners had raised any kind of objection with regard to their dues/benefits, legality or illegality of the order whereby their service were terminated and their reinstatement in service, therefore, at this belated stage, the petitioners are not allowed and entitled to agitate for their claims regarding legality/illegality of their termination order, their dues and their reinstatement in service. He further argued that the management of the respondent has complied with the order dated 30-42001 of the 3rd Labour Court in letter and spite which gained finality because it was not set aside by any of the superior Courts. According to him, in view of the above facts, the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the prayer clause of their petition in hand have become infructuous and thus, the petition being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the cases reported in (1) 1975 SCM R 49, (2) 1982 PLC 652 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh), (3) 1986 PLC 596, (4) 1999 PLC 348, (5)
1983 PLC 977 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh) and 1989 PLC 59 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh).
13. Admittedly the petitioners, prior to their termination from service, filed the instant petition along with a stay application before the learned Member NIRC Karachi Bench on 10-4-2000 who directed the management of the respondent not to remove the petitioners from service but the management of the respondent in violation of the stay order, dated 10-4-2000 terminated the services of the petitioners and prior to obtaining the permission of the concerned Labour Court, closed down the establishment. However, the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub condoning the delay allowed the application submitted by the management of the respondent under Standing Order 11- A of the Industrial and Commercial employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and permitted them to close down the establishment w.e.f, 30-4-2001 subject to payment of legal dues to the petitioners vide order, dated 30-4-2001 (Exh.R/3). The learned Presiding Officer of 3rd Labour Court vide Exhs.R/5, Exh.R/6 and Exh.R/7 with reference to his order Exh.R/3 and in compliance with order passed by the honourable High Court of Balochistan on 20-6-2003 (Exh.R/4) paid all the outstanding legal dues benefits to the petitioners but at that time, none of the petitioners raised any kind of objections and voluntarily received the dues/benefits. It is pointed out that though the order passed by the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub (Exh.R/3) was challenged but it was not set aside by any of the Superior Courts. The full details of the appeals/ applications/ petitioners/ revisions filed by the parties against each other and against the Ismail Industries who purchased the whole establishment along with all assets from the owners of International Biscuits Limited (Respondent) have been given in the judgment of the honourable High Court of Balochistan passed on 2-8-2004 which is available on record of this case as Exh.R/2 which clearly indicates that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the above referred appeals, application and revisions were not allowed by the Superior Courts. The petitioners including Muhammad Nawaz filed an application/ petition No, 83 of 2001 in the court of learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub u/s 25A (10) of the IRO, 1969 read with Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 against the respondent which was dismissed vide Order, dated 29-5-2002 (Exh.R/1). This order (Exh.R/1) was challenged by the petitioners through an appeal before the honourable High Court of Balochistan but their appeal was dismissed vide judgment, dated 2-8-2004 (Exh.R/2). This is the judgment which gained finality whereby none of the reliefs was granted to petitioners. Petitioner Muhammad Nawaz, who is also attorney of other petitioners, in the first instance, has admitted, in his cross- examination that they (petitioners) had not preferred any appeal against Exh.R/2 but he has again voluntarily stated that they had challenged Exh.R/2 before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through an appeal but their appeal was dismissed. The order dated 30-4-2001 (Exh.R/3) indicates that the legal dues/benefits were allowed to petitioners including petitioner Muhammad Nawaz w. e. f. 20- 5-2000, the date of their termination/retrenchment from service up to passing of the order by the Labour Court on 30-4-2001 while the dues were paid to petitioners w.e.f, 20-5-2000 to 19-5-2001 as admitted by petitioners Muhammad Nawaz in his cross-examination. When it was suggested to petitioner Muhammad Nawaz that he had not accepted the offer as mentioned in Exh.R/8, his reply was in negative. Meaning thereby that the offer submitted in Court by the respondent in Complaint No,7(31) of 2000-K was accepted by petitioner Muhammad Nawaz including the offer No, 1 which reads as under:--- "This honourable court was pleased to direct the undersigned to resolve this issue. The matter has been discussed in depth, and I would like to offer the following:--
(1) To tender unconditioned apology to this honourable Court."
' This offer No, 1 and three others as mentioned in. Exh.R/8 were submitted by the respondent on the directions of the court to resolve the dispute with petitioners. The offer No, 1 relates to violation of the stay order by the respondent by terminating the petitioners from employment. As the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz who is also attorney of other petitioners had accepted the offers including offer No,1, therefore, at this stage, he has no grievance against the contemnors. The petitioner Muhammad Nawaz has himself admitted in his cross-examination that the order of the Labour Court (Exh.R/3) regarding permission to close down the Factory under Standing Order 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not modified or set aside by any Court. The grievance petition of the petitioners under section 46(8) of I.R.O., 2002 against Ismail Industries Limited was dismissed in limine by the 3rd Labour Court at Hub. The Petitioners being aggrieved by dismissal of their application/petition filed Labour Appeal NO.6 of 2003 before the honourable High Court of Balochistan which was too dismissed in limine with the following observations:--- "The bare reading of the above provision reflects that a worker has right to be re-employed within a period of one year for the date of retrenchment, in the present case the retrenchment/ closure of the factory was allowed w.e.f, 30-4-2001, whereas appellants for the fist time asserted their claim by filing grievance notice dated 23-6-2003 i.e, after about more that two years, therefore, I am unable to find any force in the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.
Besides according to the appellants own showing after closure of the factory by it previous owner the same was purchased by the respondent and the factory is thereafter no more in control or under management of its previous owner while the present management was not the employer of the appellants. Hence the appellants cannot claim any right/ title against the present owner management. Above all the appellants have already been paid their dues by the previous management including benefits payable on termination of service, therefore, now at this belated stage they cannot seek any benefit/ remedy which the law also does not permit. Hence no exception can be made to the order of the Labour Court. The appeal, therefore, being without any substance is dismissed."
' The honourable High Court of Balochistan in Labour Appeal No,21 of 2002 vide Order 2-8-2004 (Exh.R/2) has observed that:- "Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellants though made an attempt to make out a case for reinstatement of the appellants but was unable to support his plea when confronted with the admitted fact that the factory has been transferred/sold to Ismail Industries limited and the grievance application filed against Ismail Industries limited for their reemployment has already been dismissed on 4-8-2003 which order after dismissal of the Labour Appeal No,6 of 2003 vide order dated 2-9-2003 has attained finality."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service because the order of their termination was declared as illegal not by the Labour Court but also by the superior courts is not sustainable. Admittedly the termination order of the petitioners has been declared as illegal but the reinstatement of the petitioners in service is impossible because not only the whole establishment of the respondent was closed down but the whole establishment along with all assets were sold out to Ismail Industries Limited. As the establishment of respondent is not in existence and every aspect of the matter has fully been considered in accordance with relevant law, facts and circumstances of the case in hand by the concerned lower and superior Courts and all the courts did not accept any one of the claims of the petitioners except their final outstanding legal dues w.e.f, 20-5-2000 to 30-4-2001 which they have already received through the learned Presiding Officer of 3rd Labour Court vide Exh.R/5, Exh.R/6 and Exh.R/7. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised objection that the management of the respondent has closed down the establishment without giving any cogent reasons and with mala fide intention only to crash the petitioners by terminating their services but this contention/objection of the learned counsel for petitioners is also not sustainable as the management of the respondent has given reasons in detail in their application under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 bearing No,2 of 2000 submitted by them before the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:---
(a) Adverse market conditions.
(b) Continued market recession.
(c) Financial crises.
(d) Lack of demand of the finished goods in the market.
(e) Financial constrains.
(f) Other conditions beyond control.
(g) Due to above reasons the Factory remained out of production for about half a year paying wages without work.
14. It will be pertinent to note that one Complaint bearing No,4(07) of 2000-K filed under sections 22-A(8)(f) and 53 (1-A read with (b)(f)(i) of I.R.O., 1969 (now section 25(8)(g) and section 72(2) of I.R.A., 2008) and other bearing No,7(31)/2000-K filed under section 22-C of I.R.O., 1969 (now section 27 of I.R.A., 2008) by the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz against the management/officers/owners of the respondent arising out of the case in hand are also pending in this Court/Bench of Commission. If the case in hand is dismissed and not decided in favour of the petitioners, then both the above complaints which have come into existence with the, institution of the case in hand would be redundant and infructuous as the petitioners have failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice against the management/officers/owners of the respondent's factory. If it is admitted to be correct for the sake of arguments that the management of the respondent have committed the offence of unfair labour practice and they are punished for the same under section 72(2) of I.R.A., 2008 even then petitioner/complainant Muhammad Nawaz would not be reinstated in service as there is no existence of the Factory/establishment of the respondent. So far as Complaint bearing No,7(31) of 2000-K is concerned, the management of the respondent have admitted their guilt by violating the stay order issued by the learned Member Karachi Bench against them but they have offered unconditional apology vide Exh.R/8 through one of them, namely, Yunus Dawood which reads as under:--
(1) To tender unconditional apology to this honourable Court.
(2) The element of contempt is between the respondent and this honourable Court, which is a matter inters and the honourable Court be gracious enough to condone the element of contempt and pleased to discharged this case.
' On a suggestion, the answer of petitioner Muhammad Nawaz, who is complainant in both the above referred complaints, was that It is not correct that I did not accept the offer as mentioned in Exh.R/8." It is very clear from answer of the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz that he has accepted the unconditional apology of the contemnors and also conceded that the contempt matter is between the contemnors and the Court. His answer leads me to the inference that petitioner Muhammad Nawaz who is complainant in the complaint did not press the allegation of contempt of court on his part just after filing of Exh.R/8. Besides, if the unconditional apology of the contemnors as offered through Exh.R/8 is not accepted by the court and they are punished, it would not redress any one of the grievances of petitioner Muhammad Nawaz who is complainant in both the contempt cases because neither the personnel of the management of the respondent are there who could redress any one of the grievances of Muhammad Nawaz to save themselves from punishment nor the establishment of the respondent is in existence which could re-employee him or other petitioners in service. I am of the considered opinion that the management of the respondent had terminated the services of the petitioners under financial constraint by violating the stay order due to reasons mentioned in the order (Exh.R/3) passed by the learned Labour Court at Hub on 30-4-2001, otherwise they being educated persons can not be expected to do so.
15. Since the petitioners have received voluntarily their all final legal dues w.e.f, 20-5-2000 to 30-4- 2001 through the learned presiding offer of 3rd Labour Court at Hub with reference to his order dated 30-4-2001 (Exh.R/3) and incompliance with the order of the honourable High Court of Balochistan, dated 20-6-2003 (Exh.R/4) and they, at, that time did not raise any objection with regard to their dues, legality/ illegality of their order of termination and their instatement in service and that they have failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice on the part of the management of the respondent, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief. In view of the above facts, the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in prayer clause of their petition have become redundant and infructuous. Besides, the orders and other documents which are available on record from Exh.R/1 to Exh.R/7 have attained finality and at this stage, they can not be called in question.
' In view of the above detailed discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case against the respondent and that not only the main petition but also the complaints No,7 (31)of 2000-K and 4 (07) of 2000-K being redundant and infructuous are not maintainable which are hereby dismissed. File of the case be consigned to record after completion. A copy of this order be prepared and placed on the record of each of the complaints bearing No,7(31) of 2000-K and 4(07) of 2000-K.