DECISION These three applications have been filed with a prayer that the R&Ps of Grievance Petitions Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1987 be called to consider the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,1, Karachi, on 20-5-1989, on applications filed under section 51 of I.R.O., 1969, by the respondents.
2. Admittedly the respondents filed grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, against the orders of removal from service by the applicants and prayed for their reinstatement and back benefits. The applications were dismissed by the learned Labour Court but on appeal the applications were allowed by this Tribunal vide orders, dated 24-5-1987. The operative portion of the Order of Tribunal is reproduced as under:- "I would also hold that the alleged domestic enquiry was not correct, impartial or fair and no proper opportunity was accorded to the appellants to defend themselves. In view of my these observations, I would set aside the impugned order and would hold that these three appellants were 'workmen' and were entitled to maintain their grievance petitions and were also entitled to be re-instated in service. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow these three appeals. The appellants are directed to be reinstated in service forthwith."
3. The respondents moved the learned Labour Court under section 51 for payment of back benefits and the impugned orders show that by consent back benefits, which are determined in the orders, were ordered to be paid by the applicants to the respondents. However the request of the applicants for recovery of loss/shortage and adjustment of the same from the amount due to the respondents was rejected.
4. Mr. S.M. Jamil Raza Zaidi, learned counsel for the applicants, has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that there was no order as to back benefits passed by this Tribunal. No doubt, there is no specific order passed by this Tribunal either allowing or disallowing the back benefits.
However from the operative part of the order, as reproduced above, it would be clear that entire proceedings of enquiry etc. were held to be partial and illegal and as such very order of termination of service of the respondents would be illegal. The appeals have been allowed which contain the prayer for back benefits. Furthermore I find from the impugned orders that the quantum of back benefits has been fixed and allowed to the respondents with the consent of the applicants. They also indicate that before the learned Labour Court no objections were raised by the applicants with regards to the maintainability of the application under section 51. Under the circumstances the applicants cannot be allowed to challenge the order which is passed with their consent and without any objection by them.
5. With regard to adjustment of any amount that may be due from the respondents to the applicants the same could not be recovered through the Labour Court. The applicants are at liberty to file suit and take other legal measures against respondents for recovery of amount, if any.
6. With these observations all the three applications are dismissed in limine.