DECISION ' These are two separate appeals filed by the appellants against a common impugned order dated 15-12-1987; passed by the Sind Labour Court No, V, at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the appellants under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, directing their reinstatement in service without back benefits.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellants claimed to have been working as Room Bearers since the year 1986 and that on 16-5-1987, their services were terminated on the ground of alleged re-organization of the respondent establishment and that when after about one month, they were offered fresh employment, without continuity of their services, they had declined to do so, hence, being aggrieved they sent their grievance notices followed by the present grievance petitions.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petitions on the ground that the services of the appellants were terminated as they had become surplus to their requirements on account of re- organization of the establishment. They claimed that, however,, fresh appointments were offered to the appellants to which they had declined and that it was not correct that the services of the appellants were dispensed with mala fide intention, thus, they were not entitled to maintain their grievance petitions which were liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard the appellants in person and Mr. Masood Mirza the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that vide an order of this Tribunal dated 1-3-1988 in an Appeal No, 464 of 1987 the grievance petitions of the present appellants have also been dismissed and the appeal of the present respondent management was allowed. Therefore, by virtue of the said decision of this Tribunal, the appellants in the present two appeals are no more workmen of the respondent establishment, therefore, their present two appeals must be dismissed as not maintainable. I, therefore, also uphold the legal objections of Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment in this behalf.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no force in the present appeals and would dismiss them accordingly as being not maintainable. '