DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Labour Court No. IV, given on 26-4-1982, upon the grievance petition filed by -the respon--dent herein and three other workmen of the appellant Company. By the said decision the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petitions of the three other workmen but directed that the respondent herein be re--instated in service in the category of packer with retrospective effect and the payment of back benefits.
2. It appears that on or about 4-4-1972 a number of persons including the respondent herein, were appointed as packers in the appellant Company. Subsequently, in the year 1974, the respondent was promoted as machine operator. By separate but identical orders, dated 21-5-1981, the services of the respondent and five other machine operators were terminated in pursuance of retrenchment scheme necessitated on account of dearth of demand for tea and consequent curtailment of supply and production. The res--pondent served a grievance notice upon the appellant Company, dated 4-6-1981, alleging that the termination of his services was effected by the appellant Company on account of his trade union activities, he being a member of the Managing Committee of the Workers' Union which was having a dispute with the management.
The order of termination of services was further assailed on the ground that it was in violation of Standing Order 13 in that persons junior, who were promoted or appointed as machine operators much after the appointment of the respondent as operator, had been retained in service while terminating the services of the respondent. The same allegations were made by the respondent in his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court
3. The learned Labour Court , on the basis of evidence led in the case, repelled the contention of the respondent that any persons junior to the respondent were retained in service when his services were terminated. There has, thus, been no violation of the provisions of Standing Order 13.
4. It only remains to be considered whether the decision of the learned Labour Court directing the appellant Company to re-instate the respondent in the category of Packer with full back benefits is in accordance with the provisions of law and can be maintained. The foundation for a grie--vance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., is the grievance notice which is required to be served on the employer by the aggrieved workman within the prescribed period. Neither in his grievance notice nor in his grievance petition has t'.- 3 respondent prayed for appointment as Packer. It is settled law a party cannot be allowed a relief not claimed by it or to set up a case not indicated in its petition or plaint. In the case of Pakistan v. Abdul Ghani (PLD1964SC68), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff, who was a railway servant could not be allowed to set up a claim outside the case set up by him in his plaint. In the subsequent case of Government of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad (PLD1975SC469), their Lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated their earlier view expressed in the case of Abdul Ghani that "it is a well-established rule that if a pleading of fact is not pleaded no case can be founded on it". In the case of Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IV (1979 PLC 50), a learned Single Judge of the Karachi High Court, while construing subsection (5) of section 25-A, I.R.O. Observed that though the said subsection empowers the Labour Courts to go into the facts, they have to act in a judicious manner and ;he normal procedure of confining the parties to the case set up by them cannot be departed from to the .Disadvantage of the other side.
My learned predecessor in the case reported as Sind Road Transport Corporation v. R. M. Ishaq (1979 PLC 541) refused to deal with the plea of the workman that persons junior to him were subsequently re-instated on the ground that this plea was neither mentioned in the grievance notice nor in the grievance petition. Finally I would refer to the case of Divisional Superintendent, P.
W. R., Karachi v. Usman Ghani and others (1960.PLC 1022) wherein I have held that a relief not prayed for by a workman in- his grievance petition cannot be granted.
5. Since the respondent herein had made no prayer in his grievance petition for appointment as Packer nor was it his claim in the grievance petition for appointment of his employment as operator he was entitled to be reverted or appointed to his original post of Packer, I would set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal. The back benefits deposited by the appellant-Company are ordered to be refunded.