DECISION These are two separate appeals filed by the appellants establishment against two separate impugned orders, both dated 17-6-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No,VII at Sukkur, who had allowed both the grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, filed separately by each respondent, directing their reinstatement in service with full back benefits. As a common point of law is involved in both these appeals, therefore, I would decide both these two appeals by this single decision.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that both the respondents were initially employed in the appellants' contract project viz., Sind Irri. Project as Accounts Assistant at a monthly salary of Rs,1,210 in Grade III on 29-11-1982 and 9-9-1982 respectively, as per Sind Irri. Project, Rice mills of private parties were taken on lease for one season by the appellants establishment and during this period of probation, their services were terminated with effect from 15-11-1983 and in token of receipt of the termination letters, both the respondents had received their dues in full and final settlement without challenging the actions of the management, in any manner. Thereafter, the appellants establishment had got extension of work, therefore, both of them were offered purely temporary the jobs for a specific period of only six months to which they readily accepted and at this stage also, they did not claim, either for continuity of their previous probationary,services or claiming to be treated as permanent worker. Thus, on completion of this job also, the services of both the respondents were again terminated with effect from 20-11-1984 alongwith a number of. other workers and by accepting this termination of services without any protest or agitation, both the respondents had again received their dues in full and final settlement and also a Service Certificate. However, thereafter, both the respondents had served their grievance notices upon the appellants establishment claiming themselves to be permanent workmen having been working continuously with effect from 29-11-1982 and 9-9-1982 respectively, but, as they had claimed not to have received any reply to their grievance notices, therefore, they had filed the present grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. It was also a case of the appellants establishment that there was no mention of any probationary period in either of appointment letters of the respondents offering purely temporary jobs for specific and limited periods.
3. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned orders, hence, the present two separate appeals.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellants establishment and Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases as well as the written arguments submitted by both the parties. The only important legal point, involved in both these appeals is whether the respondents were working on the posts of permanent nature since 29-11-1982 continuously without any break and thus had attained the status of permanent workers, or not! It is an admitted position on behalf of the respondents themselves that initially they were appointed for a period of one year with effect from 29-11-1982 and 9-9-1982 respectively and before expiry of this period, their services were terminated by the appellants establishment. After this termination, they had neither protested nor had refused to receive dues in full and final settlement. If the respondents were aggrieved with this action of the appellants management, then, they were supposed to immediately agitate this action instead of keeping silent, receiving dues in full and final settlement and readily accepting the offer of fresh appointments, again for a specific temporary period of 6 months. The respondents had themselves surrendered their right and entitlement of becoming permanent employees and for this they should thank themselves, because they had severed the relations by accepting termination letters, by receiving dues after termination and thereafter by accepting fresh appointments temporarily only for a specific period of six months. If, they were at all aggrieved, then, they should have not received the dues or accepted the fresh appointments.
Again, it is an admitted position by the respondents themselves that their second temporary appointments were terminated and at that time also they had received their dues, after termination. Now, how they could claim themselves as aggrieved persons to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court for treating them as permanent workers since their initial appointments and reinstatement in services with full back benefits and continuity of services. It is a settled principle of Law that in the aforesaid circumstances, one is not an aggrieved person entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. At this stage, I would consider it proper to reproduce an extract from the cross-examination of the respondent which is somewhat similar in both the cases containing admissions and confessions, in clear words, as under:-- "In the case of Nawab Ali I was appointed as Accounts Assistant for the first time on 29-11-1982. My services were terminated on 15-114983. 1 was intending to challenge this termination order but did not do so and on 15-11-1983 he re-appointed me (vide Ex.1/P) on 10-6-1984 again I got extension for two months vide Ex.1/E. Prior to this extension one more termination letter (Ex-1/C). Thereafter my services were terminated and was again re-employed on the same day (vide letter Ex.1/B). As per my appointment letter I was employed for 43 days. Mr.Muhammad Ishaque Dahari is junior to me is still in service. It is incorrect to suggest that I was throughout working on contingent basis and not on regular basis.
"To Court.
To confirm the first appointment letter no other document was given to me by the respondents and said that my appointment was on regular basis."
From the perusal of the above admissions, it is apparent that the respondents had themselves accepted all fresh appointments and did not care to seek legal remedy which was secured and guaranteed under the Labour Laws. Therefore, the present grievance petitions were nothing, but, an after-thought and as such, they are not legally maintainable. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondents could not point out any fact or law in rebuttal of the contentions of Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants establishment. In view of the matter, I would hold that the respondents had no right to maintain their grievance notices or grievance petitions before the Labour Court and that the learned Labour Court was not right in passing the impugned order. would, therefore, set aside both the impugned orders and uphold the actions of the appellants establishment against both these respondents.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, 1 would set aside the impugned orders and would allow both the present appeals. The result would be that both the grievance petitions tinder section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 filed by these two respondents would stand dismissed. The amount of back benefits, deposited by the appellants establishment he returned to them.