1. DECISION ' Heard Mr. M.A. Hassan Malik, Advocate for the appellant.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant had joined as Telephone Operator on 11-7-1965 in the T&T Department but afterwards he was promoted as Engineering Supervisor. From 3-10-1984 he initially applied for 180 days sick leave and he went on applying for extensions of leave from time to time. Leave was refused by his department and for his absence he was dismissed from service on 12-12-1985. He filed a departmental appeal to Director-General and the Director-General ordered a retrial of the case of the appellant. He was reinstated and was again served the show-cause notice and he was removed from service by an order dated 5-1- 1988. He filed another departmental appeal and then a Review Application before the General Manager. Ultimately on 20-4-1992 he filed his appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal as time-barred and also on merits, because it was found that the appellant had left Pakistan and had tried to obtain service outside Pakistan, therefore, he did not even appear before the Civil Surgeon for medical examination as ordered by his department. He remained absent unauthorisedly for which he was dismissed and the Federal Services Tribunal therefore rejected the appeal against that dismissal.
2. Against the judgment of the Federal Services Tribunal, the appellant went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed his application for leave to appeal on merits. After dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court the appellant relying upon a judgment of the Lahore High Court that the employees of T&T Department could claim to be workmen under the I.R.O. Filed a petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the Labour Court No, V, Karachi. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court this petition was dismissed by the Labour Court holding that the appellant was not a workman and that he had no remedy under the I.R.O. The appellant has thereafter filed this appeal before this Tribunal still on the ground that he was a workman.
3. Apparently the requirements of section 25-A of the I.R.O. Have not been complied with nor has it been shown that the appellant is still entitled at this late stage to seek remedy under section 25-A of the I.R.O. He has already moved the Federal Services Tribunal and the Supreme Court but failed.
4. He cannot now repeat the process of appeal over again under the Labour Laws. The appeal is therefore, dismissed in limine.