1. ' S.A. RABBANI, J.--The petitioners were in employment of M/s. Jhonsen & Phillips (Pakistan) Limited, respondent No,3. The employer gave them a notice for retirement which they challenged in Sindh Labour Court No,III Karachi. The employer then recalled the notice and terminated the services of the petitioners. The petitioners withdrew the petition against retirement and filed another one challenging their termination of services. The Sindh Labour Court allowed their petition and reinstated them in service but refused to give them back benefits. The decision of Sindh Labour Court was challenged before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal by both the parties, relating reinstatement of the petitioner by the respondent and refusal of back benefits by the petitioners.
2. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the employer and set aside the order of the Labour Court and as corollary the appeal regarding back benefits was dismissed.
3. Against this order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners filed the present petition praying that the impugned order be set aside and the order of the Labour Court be restored with the addition of full back benefits.
4. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Majeed Jeelani, Advocate, for the petitioner. None was present to argue for the. Respondents.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that they were not physically fit to continue in the employment, but no medical examination was conducted to ascertain the fitness. He further contended that the Tribunal was hearing appeal against the termination but it considered their retirement.
6. Practically this petition has been treated as an appeal from the order of the respondent viz. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal in which the errors in the decision of the Tribunal have been pointed out.
7. A remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution is an extraordinary remedy provided for the cases where the Legislature did not provide an adequate remedy through a law. This remedy is not available in the cases where the Legislature intended to end litigation at certain stage and with this intention they did not provide a forum of appeal. Where the law provides only one appeal this remedy can not substitute a second appeal for the reason that it has not been provided. The intention of the Legislature is obvious that in labour cases they considered the remedy adequate by providing for a decision by the Labour Court and one appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Legislature considered it fit to and litigation here and, therefore, it did not provide for s second appeal before the High Court or before any other forum. Continuation of litigation by way of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan would mean defeating the object of the Legislature. A petition under this Constitutional provision may lie only in case where the Tribunal fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or where it assumes jurisdiction where it has none. The decision of the Tribunal cannot be challenged in the petition on the ground of misappreciation or wrong conclusion. For the reason mentioned above, the petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed accordingly.