' ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- Messrs Glaxo Smith Kline Pakistan Limited (hereinafter referred as "the company") have called in question the legality of the order dated 11-12-2010 of Labour Court No,2, Lahore, whereby the objection of the company regarding maintainability of the second petition filed by the respondent substantially seeking the same relief which the respondent had claimed though his earlier complaint/petition dated 14-7-2010 was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the services of respondent Muhammad Naseer Khan Mirza were terminated by the company on the ground of redundancy on 2-7-2010. He filed a complaint as Chairman of the Union in Labour Court No,2, Lahore under section 48(4)(e) read with section 17 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010. The court, on the application of respondent suspended the order and allowed Muhammad Naseer Khan to continue his duties, This was challenged by the company through a Revision Petition in the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order and directed the court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
3. The respondent has filed another Grievance Petition challenging his termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 seeking relief of reinstatement with back- benefits. The company filed a preliminary objection quo the maintainability of the petitions simultaneously. The court, however ruled that the objection was misconceived and dismissed the same.
4. The company has again challenged this order being illegal as the court has no jurisdiction to proceed with both petitions on the same cause of action and virtually on the same grounds.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The stance of the company is that both the petitions seeking same relief cannot proceed simultaneously. It is submitted that splitting of the claim which entails into multiplicity of litigation under the same cause of action is not valid and that party cannot be vexed twice. The respondent, however, argued that in response to the earlier petition/complaint, the company had itself raised an objection that the union cannot espouse the cause of an individual and further the termination order of Naseer Mirza has not been assailed in the complaint. As such the company is now estopped from raising the objection when Mr. Naseer Mirza has filed his individual grievance for the redressal of his claim.
7. The assertion of the learned counsel for Muhammad Naseer Khan Mirza perhaps would have been valid in the situation prior to the enactment of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010. But now the position has changed. Learned Labour Court has now a combine of jurisdiction that of the NIRC to proceed against the unfair labour practices and that of section 33, of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, possessed by the Labour Court. A careful perusal of the record shows that the earlier petition was a complaint of unfair labour practices whereas the second one is under section 33 of P.I.R. Act, 2010 as well as the complaint for unfair labour practices. As such, the relief sought by the respondent in the earlier petition/complaint has been included in the latest grievance petition. The learned Labour Court indeed has jurisdiction to entertain and try the case on the grounds taken in both the petitions. But not through the two different and independent petitions. Both the petitions, one on the basis of unfair labour practices and the other seeking relief on the basis of individual grievance are not proceedable simultaneously. It is noteworthy that subsequent petition consists of allegations of unfair labour practices and also seeks relief against unfair labour practices. Law prohibits multiplicity of claims based on the same cause of action in order to avoid conflict of decisions. As such in the given circumstances, the earlier petition is not maintainable.
8. It, therefore, appears just, fair and proper that only the second petition should precede and the earlier complaint is held to be unmaintainable. Consequently the revision petition is accepted as indicated above leaving the parties to bear their own costs.