DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 16-12-1990, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, III whereby grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Mahmood Habibullah, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Jahangir, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The appellant was admittedly a workman working with the respondent. He alleged that he was gate-stopped on 3-8-1989 and was not allowed to resume his duty therefore after serving grievance notice upon the respondent he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the appellant had remained absent for which he was charge-sheeted and was finally dismissed by an order dated 22-2-1989. They have also denied to have gate-stopped him. The grievance application was filed on 26-10-1988 but in view of the dismissal order, dated 22-2-1989 the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance application as premature.
4. The only question that requires consideration is as to whether from 3-8-1988 the respondent was restrained from resuming duties. He admittedly served grievance notice upon the respondents on 25-8-1988 which was replied by the respondents by letter dated 8-9-1988. In this reply the respondents have referred to their previous letter dated 30-7-1988 in which he was asked to resume duty. In the cross-examination the appellant has admitted to have received Annexure 'A' to written statement which is the letter dated 30-7-1988 in which he was asked to resume duty.
However, his grievance is that he was gate-stopped on 3-8-1988 and not in the month of July. In the reply to the grievance notice the respondents have not offered the appellant to resume duties, though they have denied to have gate-stopped him. This circumstance itself gives support to the oral evidence of the appellant, that he was gate-stopped on 3-8-1988. Had he not been gate stopped, there was no reason for him to indulge in this litigation. There is no evidence that he was offered to resume duty till 22-2-1989, nor there is any suspension order, produced by the respondent.
5. The appellant admits in the cross-examination that he had received order of dismissal, dated 22-2-1989 on his home address. In the case of Muhammad Rauf v. M/s. Makran Fishries Ltd. And another 1981 SCM R 631 their Lordships had awarded the salary to the workman who had been removed without service of dismissal order in writing, till the date the dismissal order in writing was passed and produced in the Court in the grievance application proceedings. In this case also during the pendency of the grievance application proceedings the dismissal order has been passed on 22-2-1989, which was admittedly received by the appellant. The appellant is therefore deemed to be in service up to the date the dismissal order in writing was passed and is entitled to all the dues up to that date, and also other legal dues which he is allowed under the dismissal order to collect. The order of Labour Court is modified to that extent. With respect to the period after the dismissal order was passed, the dismissal order dated 22-2-1989, whether legal or illegal, has not been challenged in this grievance petition and therefore no relief can be granted to the appellant after that date. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.