' This is an appeal filed against the order, dated 1st November, 1983 whereby the learned Labour Court No, V has dismissed the application of the appellant filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969.
2. The facts leading up to the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was employed in the respondent-establishment since 15th August, 1978. It is alleged by him that his services were terminated on 29th August, 1982 without assigning any reason and payment of his legal dues. He has further alleged that he had received a cheque of Rs, 1,950 only as his dues towards gratuity. He served a grievance notice, dated 20th November, 1982 on the respondent and his grievance was not redressed. He, therefore, filed an application under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969 in the learned Labour Court challenging the order of termination of his services as illegal and improper. The learned Labour Court issued notice to the respondent who failed to appear with the result that ex parte proceedings were taken against the respondent and ultimately an ex parte order, dated 15th February, 1983 was passed directing the respondent to re-instate the appellant with full back benefits. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order alleging that he had no knowledge of the proceedings as he was not served with the notices.
Simultaneously he filed an appeal before this Tribunal challenging the ex parte order. In the meantime, the learned Labour Court, vide its order, dated 14th May, 1983, set aside the ex parte order, dated 15th February, 1983, and directed the respondent to file the written reply. Consequently, this Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the respondent vide its order, dated 15th May, 1983. The respondent filed the legal objections to the grievance application mainly contending that the appellant was not a workman, had no cause of action to file the grievance application and he had received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim and had withdrawn the grievance notice, dated 20th November, 1982, therefore, his application was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court finding that the appellant had persistently and deliberately avoided to pursue his grievance application as he had remained absent without sufficient cause, that he had received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim and had withdrawn the grievance notice, dated 20th November, 1982, and that since his application also did not disclose any cause of action, dismissed the application of the appellant as non-maintainable on the grounds of non-prosecution as well as on merits, vide its order, dated 1st November, 1983. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has come in this appeal.
3. I have perused the material evidence on the record and have also heard Mr. Yousuf Khan, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Hafeez, the learned Advocate for the respondent at sufficient length. Mr. Yousuf Khan for the appellant has mainly contended that the application for setting aside the ex parte order against the respondent was time-barred and, therefore, the order, dated 14th May, 1983, passed by the learned Labour Court was illegal and void and in consequence the impugned order, dated 1st November, 1983 was also illegal and void. I find that the learned Labour Court in its order, dated 14th May, 1983, after giving a due consideration to the plea of bar of limitation has held that the application for setting aside the order was within the period of limitation. The appellant has failed to take any legal action against that order uptil now and I do not think that the matter in that respect can possibly be re-opened while hearing this appeal against the subsequent order passed as long after a period of about 6 months on 1st November, 1983. Accordingly, I find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in that respect. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hafeez on behalf of the respondent has referred me to the Order sheet of the file of the learned Labour Court. He has referred to the Orders, dated 14th May, 1983, 28th September, 1983, 29th October, 1983 and 1st November, 1983, on which date the impugned order was passed. He has contended that the appellant as well as his representative were attending the Court regularly till 14th May, 1983 when the order setting aside the ex parte order was passed, whereafter they suddenly disappeared and the Court went on issuing process against the appellant when Mr. Nafisul Hassan appeared on behalf of the appellant on 28th September, 1983 and obtained adjournment whereafter the case was fixed again on 29th October, 1983, when again the appellant and his representative remained absent without any cause. The case was then adjourned to 1st November, 1983 when again the appellant and his representative were absent and the learned Labour Court hearing the arguments on behalf of the respondent passed the impugned order. He has contended that the learned Labour Court was, in view of the fact that the appellant and his representative persistently and deliberately avoided to pursue the proceedings, quite justified in dismissing the application on the ground of non-prosecution.. In view of what has been stated above, which is based on the undisputed facts disclosed on the record, I find that the contention raised on behalf of the respondent is not without substance.
4. I would then deal with the second ground on the basis of which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the application. The application under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969, nowhere says that the appellant was a workman. The grievance notice, dated 20th November, 1982, disclosed that he has designated himself as a Sales Representative. The three documents bearing endorsements, dated 14th December, 1982 and 21st February, 1983 of the appellant in his own handwriting, the photostats of which were produced on behalf of the respondent before the learned Labour Court and the original of which have been now produced in this appeal as they were earlier produced in earlier appeal before this Tribunal would clearly disclose that the appellant had accepted the cheque of Rs, 1,950 in full and final settlement of his claim, that he had withdrawn the grievance notice, dated 20th November, 1982 and that he had sought full time job somewhere else. Mr. Yousuf Khan has not disputed these documents and the endoresements made thereon, by the appellant at all. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, has therefore, contended that neither the grievance application of the appellant disclosed any cause of action to the effect that he was a workman within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance and that he had withdrawn the grievance notice nor he is entitled to further dues as he had received Rs, 1,950 not towards gratuity but towards full and final settlement of his claim. Accordingly, in view of this undisputed evidence on the record, I find enough substance in this contention raised on behalf of the respondent as well. The learned Labour Court, therefore, very rightly dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, as legally non-maintainable.