DECISION ' This appeal arises from an older of the Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O. For reinstatement and back benefit.
2. The appellant claims to be an Advertisement Assistant for Daily Man an Urdu paper, since 1-6- 1987 on a salary of Rs,3,000 per month. His services were terminated on 1-12-1989 orally and without giving any reason.
3. The case of the respondent is that the appellant was not employed by them as a workman; that he was procuring advertisements for the paper on contract basis.
4. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show that he was a workman within the definition of workman in the I.R.O. And his services were terminated in violation of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The appellant has not produced any order in writing appointing him as a workman nor has he summoned any Attendance Register or a Receipt Book regarding payment of wages. He himself admits that he was appointed orally and terminated also orally. There is, therefore, no job description to establish that he was doing any manual or clerical work for the respondent. There is no relationship of employer and workman established in evidence. It is, therefore, possible that the appellant was working part time on contract to procure advertisements for the paper.
5. The appellant had admittedly applied for relief to N.I.R.C., Karachi. His application was dismissed.
He then preferred appeal before Appellate Bench of N.I.R.C. But his appeal was also dismissed. After having exhausted his remedies before the N.I.R.C. He has repeated the petition on the same cause of action before the Labour Court. Since the matter has already been decided by the N.I.R.C. The application before the Labour Court for the same cause of action is not maintainable.
6. Lastly the appellant has claimed back benefits for being out of job but it has been shown in evidence that he is himself editing weekly magazine called People's Review.
7. There is thus no merit in this appeal. The order of the Labour Court is therefore maintained and the appeal is dismissed.