DECISION ' The appellant was working as an unloader with the respondent No, 1 for some years. It is alleged that on the 1st of February, 1992, he was gate-stopped. He had sent a grievance notice on the 2nd of February and filed a petition before the Labour Court, in spite of the fact that the alleged termination from service was denied in the reply of the grievance notice.
2. In the written reply it was repeated that the service of the appellant had not been terminated and he was welcome to report to the factory.
3. The learned Presiding Officer, in these circumstances dismissed the petition. It is stated that in the wake of this order the appellant had resumed the duty and also drawn his pay. After some interval he was proceeded against for unauthorised absence. Being found guilty in an ex parte proceeding he was dismissed from service. The appellant had challenged this order of dismissal before the Labour Court.
4. Mr. Abdul Hafiz, learned counsel for the respondent has made an application praying that in view of the subsequent dismissal of the appellant, the appeal has become infructuous, and should therefore be dismissed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hafiz and Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman.
5. It appears that the workers of the respondent factory were earlier laid off, and proceedings are already pending before the Labour Court in that context. There is also the other petition at the instance of the appellant challenging his dismissal. The entire spectrum of the dispute between the parties is bound to be explored in the latter petition.
6. Agreeing with Mr. Abdul Hafiz that in the circumstances there is no warrant for multiplicity of proceedings and further holding that no prejudice, whatsoever, is even remotely discernible, I will