' These two appeals arise from 2 similar cases, the question of facts and taw being common they will therefore be disposed of by this common decision.
' Appellant Muhammad Ramzan and his Advocate, were both absent in the morning when the case was called up. The matter was therefore adjourned and it is again taken up at the end of disposal of the Board. Appellant Muhammad Ramzan has now appeared and he requests for adjournment orally on the ground that his Advocate is not coming because he is busy before the Labour Court. It is evident that the Advocate is avoiding to appear, otherwise he would have filed an application for adjournment in the morning.
2. I have heard Mr. M. Latif Saghar for respondent M/s. Shezan (Private) Limited. He has pointed out that the appellant was working as a waiter at Shezan Ampis Restaurant behind Hotel Metropole.
Later or the respondent sold away their concern to one Mr. Abid Nawaz and he made a fresh agreement regarding the workers with the owner of the building Mr. Abid Nawaz took all the workers in his employment but did not take appellant Ramzan and Imran waiters. Respondent Imran has also remained absent even by now.
3. These two aggrieved waiters then filed grievance petition before the Labour Court against Shezan Limited for re-instatement. The learned Labour Court dismissed both these petitions on the ground that the petitioners had no right guaranteed under the law to seek redress by filing a grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The Labour Court also found that during the pendency of the case the applicant Muhammad Ramzan had entered into a compromise with Shezan Limited and received a sum of Rs,55,000 in full and final settlement of his claim. He had agreed that he would withdraw the grievance petition. Since it was withdrawn by him under settlement afterwards Muhammad Ramzan had no more any cause of action. The Labour Court therefore dismissed his petition. The petition of Muhammad Imran which was similar in nature was also dismissed on the ground that his services were rightly terminated by the previous employer Shezan Limited as they had sold this establishment. It was for Imran to approach the new employer for his job.
4. I cannot therefore find any substance in both these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.