DECISION ' This appeal was originally filed on 30-3-1989 against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, dated 2-3-1989 whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant holding him to be not a workman. As the learned Labour Court had not given any finding on merits of the case, this Tribunal by order dated 13-3-1990 with consent of parties remanded case back to the learned Labour Court No, IV to give decision on merits also. The learned Labour Court decided the case on merits by decision dated 6-10-1990 and sent the R&P back to this Tribunal as the case had been remanded back to the learned Labour Court without any decision in appeal.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul-Majeed for the appellant and Mr. Riffat Usmani for the respondent and have also gone through the R&P of the case and the two aforementioned orders passed by learned Labour Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was admittedly employee of the respondent who was charge-sheeted on 27-3-1985 for certain acts of misconduct for which regular domestic enquiry was held in which he was found guilty. AI a consequence thereof he was dismissed from service vide order dated 4-5-1985. After serving grievance notice upon the respondent, the appellant filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
4. The position that now emerges in appeal is that the appeal has been filed against the finding of learned Labour Court that the appellant was not a workman, but no appeal has been filed against the finding of learned Labour Court dated 6-10-1990 whereby the learned Labour Court decided the case on merit against the appellant holding that enquiry held was proper and legal and there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant. As no appeal has been filed against the second finding of learned Labour Court it has attained finality in view of section 37(4) of I.R.O. Mr. Abdul Majeed submits that he could not file appeal against the second order because the appellant had not contacted him since long and all his efforts to contact the appellant failed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the second finding of the learned Labour Court has not been appealed against and therefore it has attained finality.
5. In view of the above circumstances the question as to whether the appellant was workman or not is only of academic nature, because even on merits he has been found to have been rightly dismissed by learned Labour Court. As such no useful purpose would be served by discussing the question as to whether respondent was workman or not as no relief by way of reinstatement or back benefits can be granted by this Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid finding on merits by the learned Court. As such the appeal is dismissed.