DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, dated July 27, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The services of the appellant were terminated on 10th August 1971. He received the letter terminating his services dated 10th August 1971, on 28th August 1971. He made an application to the Labour Court on 5th July 1972, almost after about a year of the cause of action. At the time when the services of the appellant were terminated the only remedy open to him was to pursue the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance). Standing Order 18 continued in operation till 13th April 1972, when it was omitted and section 25-A of the Ordinance was introduced in the Ordinance.
2. Under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance the appellant had to seek redress by giving a notice to his employer in writing within fifteen days of the occurrence of the cause of his grievance. The employer was expected to give his reply within thirty days of the receipt of the notice. The appellant was to make an application to the Labour Court if he was not satified with the reply of the employer, within thirty days. In case the employer did not give any reply the workman could approach the Labour Court within sixty days. It has been held by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, in the case of Saleemsons Ltd. (1) that the provisions of Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance were mandatory. The appellant admittedly, did not make an application under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance to the Labour Court. The appellant having not followed the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, he lost his remedy to ask for any relief from the Labour Court.
3. It is not open to the workman to pursue his remedy under section 25-A of the Ordinance on the ground that the termination of his service was an illegal act and, therefore, was a continuing wrong, Section 25-A of the Ordinance has not been given retrospective effect. The cause of action which arose to the workman, he having not followed the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, came to an end.
A transaction past and closed cannot now be, re-opened. The appeal is dismissed. (1) PLD 1973 Kar. 1