MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J. - The petitioner has invoked the Constitution Jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents o make payment of the petitioner's legitimate claims according to the rules w.e.f. 18.6.1979.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on ad hoc basis w.e.f. J8.6.1979 against the permanent vacancy and he was regularized on the same post after expiry of period of for years. The petitioner being dissatisfied knocked the jurisdiction of Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur and the said Court vide its order dated 4.10.1987 accepted the prayer of the petitioner and directed the Department to regularise the petitioner as Stenographer in BS-10 w.e.f 1.6.1983 and he was declared entitled to get BPS-15 w.e.f.
8.4.1985. The order of the Labour Court was -challenged by the Department before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 8.12.1987 accepted the appeal and set aside the findings of the Labour Court.
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner knocked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through W.P.
No. 233-88 and learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.9.1997 accepted the writ petition and set aside the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 8.12.1987.
4. The grievance of the petitioner was not redressed by the Department, therefore, he filed Cr. Orl.
No. 184/98 which was disposed of by this Court on 1.4.1999 wherein the learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. Thereafter another Cr. Orl. No. 138/99 came, which was disposed of by this Court on 21.10.1999.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in spite of undertaking given by the respondents the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed so far.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the order of the Labour Court has been implemented by the Department in strict senso and the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.
7. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Original No. 184-98 has stated categorically that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed by the Department. The statement of the learned counsel is binding on the petitioner and he cannot get rid of the same.
Furthermore, the Labour Court has accepted the grievance of the petitioner and declared him to be promoted w.e.f. 1.6.1983 and not from 18.6.1979 and that order of the Court has already been complied with by the Department. Neither any finding has been given nor any direction has been given by this Court in its judgment dated 23.9.1997 passed in W.P. 233/88. This Court has only set aside the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and maintained the order of the Labour Court. This Court has not given any direction to the Department to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 18.6.1979 and give benefits , from the said date.
In view of the above discussion, there is no force in the instant writ j petition and the same is dismissed.