This is an appeal against the decision of the Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone. Lahore, passed under section 25-A ofIndustrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, whereby the petition of Muhammad Aslam, appellant, was dismissed.
2. In this case Muhammad Aslam, appellant, had challeng--ed his dismissal vide order 13-6-1970.
The respondent had resisted the petition on merit and had also raised preliminary objection that the appellant had previously filed an application before the same Court for getting the same relief, which was dismissed on 16-1-1971, and, therefore, the instant petition filed by him was barred by res judicata. The learned Labour Court accepted this preliminary objection and also came to the conclusion that since the appellant had not particularised in the body or his petition any right guaranteed to him by or under any law or any award or settlement of which the respondent could be held to have deprived him (appellant) and, therefore, the instant' petition was not maintainable.
3. The Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore, when Mr. M. A. Soofi, was the Chairman, vide order dated 16-1-1971 dismissed the petition of the appellant under section 3 4 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by holding that the appel--lant had not particularised in the body of his petition ally right guaranteed to him by or under any law or any award or settle--ment - of which the respondent could be held to have deprived the appellant, therefore, the question of the Court, enforcing any such right in favour of the appellant under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 did not arise at all.
4. Thus from the above It is clear that the previous petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on a preliminary point and not on merits. It is a well-established rule of law that principle of res judicata would only apply when the previous suit or peti--tion was dismissed on merits and not on technical ground. I am fortified in this view by the decision of the West Pakistan High Court In the case, Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Pak. Cigarette Labour Union and others (PLD 1964 Jour.337) wherein it was held:- "It is well established rule of law that in order to support a plea of res judicata the former decision must have been on tie t Brits of, the question in Issue In the subsequent litigation."
In the case of Haji Ashfaq Ahmad Khan and others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Pakistan and others (PLD 1966 Kar. 597) it was held: "In order to apply the principle of res judicata 3s embodied intention 11 of the Civil Procedure Cede, 1908: two of the necessary essential are that the matter should be between the same parties and that there must be final adjudication on the merits of the case. If a writ petition was dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or nit the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of order. If the order considers the question raised in the petition it would be an order ort merits. On the other hand if the order does not consider all the aspects of the case and disposes of tile matter on some technical ground it cannot be said to be an order on merits, so as to attract the principle of res judicata."
In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent has no force and as such the instant petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is not barred by res judicata.
5. Further as regards the question that the appellant did not specify in the body of his petition any law under which ha had been deprived of any right guaranteed to him. 1, from the perusal of the paragraph 8 of the petition find that he had been deprived of a right guaranteed to him under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance1968, but its name was not particularly mentioned there--in. In view of the above I also overrule this preliminary objection.
I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of Vie Court below and remand toe case back for decision on merits.