' This is the employer's appeal filed against the order of the learned Presiding Officer-III, Labour Court Baluchistan passed on 26-3-1985 whereby the appellant has been directed to re-instate the respondent in service and pay back benefits.
' By an application drafted on 3-1-1985 but presented before the Presiding Officer-Ill Labour Court, Quetta on 19-1-1985 the respondent herein alleged that he was terminated w,e,f, 14-12-1984. "without notice and or without any charge sheet and without his wages". It was further alleged that he had approached the respondent vide grievance notice dated 17-12-1984 to redress his grievance by re-instating him back in the service with full back benefits and that the respondent did not reply his grievance notice. It was prayed that "Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 for the (i) re-instatement back in service of the respondent with retrospective effect with full back benefits.
3. The reply statement filed on behalf of the appellant (respondent before the Labour Court) took an objection that the applicant has waived his right of filling the application under section 25-A I.R.O. As he has accepted and received the full and final settlement of his dues and claims on 2-1- 1985. On this score alone the application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merit the case was explained that on 28-11-1984 the respondent herein had submitted a medical bill for Rs,61 for reimbursement (copy was annexed). It was observed that the amount of bill was altered from Rs,61 to extract more money on the basis of this altered bill. Thereafter a charge sheet was issued on 7-12-1984. In his reply the applicant pleaded guilty. He was afforded opportunity of personal hearing which was awaited by him. As the applicant pleaded guilty he was dismissed from service vide order dated 16-12-1984. As the applicant refused to receive his letter of dismissal the same was sent at his postal address by Registered post office receipt No,86 (The copies of the documents referred above were enclosed with the reply statement).
' The receipt of grievance notice of 18-12-1984 was admitted but it was said that the applicant came to respondent on 2-1-1985 and received his legal dues in full and final settlement of all his claims, the grievance notice stood withdrawn hence the same was not considered and replied, it was therefore, contended that the application is not maintainable and the applicant is not entitled to any remedy.
5. It is significant that the case of present respondent was that his services were terminated without notice, without charge -sheet and without his wages. He was represented through counsel before the Labour Court and in spite of the reply of the employer that his dues have been paid to him which he has accepted without any protest persisted in his allegations and in his examination- in-chief recorded by the Labour Court on 2-3-1985 said:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It is only when he was confronted with the documents he admitted that he had replied to the charge sheet and that on 2-1-1985 had received two amounts, one, a sum of Rs,515.58 (the amount represented Provident Fund and Employer's contribution) and the other, Rs,316.59 (this is the pay for 13 days for the month of December, 1984). The documents produced in Court in that behalf bear the thumb-impression of the respondent. The payments received by him were after he had been sent grievance notice. In the application filed under section 25-A, I.R.O. Upto 19-1-1985 there was a complete denial of any charge sheet, of the receipt of any amount. At no stage thereafter, even in his statement before the Labour Court, he did not protest that he had accepted the amounts (referred above) with demur. On such state of affairs it can be safely concluded that he had been paid before he approached the Labour Court. The stand of the employer as contained in the reply statement stands established. The factual dispute, therefore, is thus, resolved. For this reason, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the employer the notice was not replied as the grievance stood redressed. I am, therefore, of the view that by accepting Rs,515.58 plus Rs,316.59 the respondent had no grievance left on the basis of which he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned in the memo. Of appeal and has repeated the same at the bar that the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court has totally ignored this aspect of the case and did not consider the judgment of the superior Courts cited before him. One such authority is a Division Bench judgment of Karachi High Court (Rehman v. Sin Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi reported in 1983 PLC 210). This case is on all fours to the instant case. It has been held that having accepted the wages and provident fund by a workmen the right invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court is extinguished. I am respectful agreement with the view expressed in Karachi case. Functionary exercising judicial function is under a legal obligation show in the judgment delivered in a matter that the parties appearing before him have been properly heard and their respective contention duly considered. The conduct of the respondent, therefore, has n been found above board, and the proceedings undertaken by him we on second thought and must not be encouraged. For the above reason I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order resultantly the grievance application filed under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 stand dismissed.
' Since the respondent is a workman I would not burden with costs.
' The amount deposited by the appellant in terms of my order dated 2-4-1985 shall be refunded. e revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.