1. ' The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah, predecessor in interest of the appellants, who was T. C. R./ Guard was terminated on 3rd March, 1975 on account of absence from duty. He challenged the order of termination by making a grievance petition from the dismissal of which the present appeal arises.
2. ' After the dismissal of the grievance petition, Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah, expired, so the appeal was brought by his legal representatives i. e. The abovementioned seven appellants. On behalf of the Railway an objection has been raised that the contract of service being personal and further that the heirs of Shabbir Hussain Shah not being workman had no right of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that to the extent of back benefits, the appeal is competent by the heirs of the deceased and in support of his argument he relies upon PLD 1976 Kar.
3. 1121. The authority arose from a civil suit and not under labour laws. It has been held that right of recovery of arrears of pay if the petition had succeeded was on ascertained right, therefore, right to sue survive to the heirs. The authority is not helpful to the appellants in the present case, because only that person can come to the Labour Court and to this Tribunal who is covered by the definition of workman. As the appeal is in continuation of the main grievance petition brought before the Labour Court, the same law applies which is applicable for going to the Labour Court. In section 25- A the word 'workman' is used meaning that only that person can go to the Labour Court under section 25-A who is covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 (xxviif) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Therefore, the person who comes in appeal before this 'Tribunal must be covered by the definition of workman, if he has not been prejudiced by the order passed in favour of a workman by the Labour Court. In subsection (3) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the words 'any party aggrieved' are used. The words 'any party aggrieved' mean a person who was party before the Labour Court. Such a person is also covered by the term 'any party aggrieved' who was not party before the Labour Court but who has been adversely affected by the decision of the Labour Court. In cases where seniority or promotion is claimed and the petition is accepted holding that the person making the petition is senior to some other person or had a prior right of promotion from a person who was not party before the Labour Court, since that person is adversely affected by the decision and was condemned unheard, such a person is entitled to challenge the order in appeal upon the rule of audi alteram partem. In the present case it cannot be said that the heirs of the deceased have been adversely affected by the decision of the Labour Court. They are claiming right of the deceased and not against him. If they had been claiming any right against the deceased and the order had been passed in favour of the deceased, of course they could have come to this Tribunal asking for the setting aside of the order.
4. Their prayer is the same which was of their predecessor. Moreover, the claim of back benefits is not the main claim but is ancillary to the claim of reinstatement. When they cannot claim a right of reinstatement of the deceased, they cannot ask for the claim of back benefits.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I hold that the appellants have no right to appeal and thus the appeal is dismissed.