1. ' This Revision application has been filed against the order dated 16-8-2000 passed by the Presiding Officer. As per this impugned order, the Presiding Officer has held that the Application No,1 of 2000 under section 25-A (1) of I.R.O. Is maintainable.
2. ' According to the counsel for the appellant the brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a sole proprietorship Company engaged in the business of contracting, loading and handling of products in certain specified area of Angro Chemical Pakistan Limited at their Fertilizer Plant located at Deharki. To that extent an agreement was entered into between the applicant and Angro Chemical Pakistan Limited. The agreement expired on 30-4-1998 whereafter it was extended for a period of two months to the 30-6-1998.
3. ' In order to execute the contract so awarded, 99 workers were employed whose salary was being paid and were under the control and supervision of the applicant. The applicant decided to terminate the contract and a letter was issued by the applicant to the Angro Chemical Pakistan Limited. They also decided to close down the business with effect from 20-6-1998. The Angro Chemical Pakistan Limited accepted the termination and agreed that the services shall not be provided effective 21-6-1998. Each of the workers were issued letters of termination and reason was specified. The salary in lieu of one month's notice was also given. Since the workers refused to accept the letter therefore, they were sent c/o. Union and also by a registered A/D. Copies were also sent to the Directive of the Labour. Since it was decided to close down the business, therefore an Application No,1 of 1998 Standing Order 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Order, Ordinance 1968 was also instituted before the VIIth Labour Court on 27-6-1998. From 99 workers, 86 workers accepted the dis-continuation of the service. Remaining 13 persons filed Case No,3 of 1998 under section 34 of the I.R.O. Before the Vth Sindh Labour Court, Sukkur. Thereafter this case was dismissed and a case was also preferred' under 25-A(10), which was also dismissed. A appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal by order dated 10-9-1999. Thereafter 7 persons cleared the dues.
4. ' Then with mala fide intention, 13 persons (including 7 who had cleared the dues) started litigation again and issued afresh notice of grievance dated 15-3-2000. The reply was given and it was pointed out that twice the issue had been resolved by the Sindh Labour Court and Sindh Appellate Tribunal, Thereafter Case No,1 of 2000 was filed under section 25-A (10) once again before the Sindh Labour Court (VII), Sukkur, The grievous petition was also filed where the applicant was made a party alongwith Angro Chemical Pakistan and Qadir & Company. Preliminary objections were filed and the matter was fixed for arguments. However, the Vth Labour Court, Sukkur observed that the respondent No,3 justifying an embargo in the third round of litigation and without recording of evidence gave finding on facts. He also dismissed the application filed by the applicant. However, the legality and propriety of the impugned order was challenged before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, who granted the stay. Thereafter, the I.R.O., 1969 was repeated and I.R.O. 2002 was promulgated. Appellate powers were given to the High Court in terms of section 48 I.R.O. 2002 and the Rivisional Powers were given under section 48(3) in I.R.O. 2002 that is the reasons why this mater is fixed before this Court.
5. ' The respondents being members of Angro 'Chemical bargaining Contractors Mazdoor Union entered into a settlement when wherein it was agreed that the case pertaining to grant of permission in 11-A of the Standing Order be disposed of in terms of settlement. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal passed an order disposing of. The matter pending before it. This order up-till date has not been challenged and therefore, it has attained finality.
6. ' The applicants have also pointed out that under section 48(3) of 2002, the High Court has Revisional powers to examine correctness, legality, propriety of any order passed by the Labour Court. Hence through this Revision Application,the applicant is seeking this Court indulgence in getting a finding on the impugned order as to whether it is correct, legal and proper order.
7. ' The applicant alongwith the Revision application has filed several documents, which narrate the entire story.
8. ' Before this, the inatter could be heard, several orders were passed and notices were issued to the Respondents. The notices were served to the respondents. The respondents were served through Mr. Shabeer Qureshi, advocate but it was objected that the notice should be sent directly to the labour through the Union. Accordingly Office was directed to issue notice to the respondents at the address given. Notices where issued and duly served. This is evident from the file. They were also served through the Civil Judge, Daharki, who has also placed on record a letter that the notices have been duly served upon the respondents.
9. ' Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, learned counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that the dues of the respondents, which were not cleared shall be deposited with the Additional Registrar, of this Court, who shall issue a notice and shall hand-over the same after due verification. According to him, once the dues are cleared it is a settled law that no grievance can be entertained under the law against the management.
10. ' The learned counsel has relied on several case laws in support of his arguments. In the case of Gulzar Khan v. PTC etc., reported in NLR, 1993, TD (Labour) 26, it has been observed that the allegations of un-fair labour practice on part of employer without justifying the acts and circumstances would not amount to a case of un-fair labour practice under 22A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., According to the senior member who had passed his order the allegations are to be specified.
11. Furthermore it was also held that after the first petition was dismissed as withdrawh then second petition between the same parties on the same cause of action was barred.
12. ' In the case of Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory, W.P.I.D.C. Multan v. Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory Labour, Union 1996 PLC 26, it was observed that the policy of law has always been to confine the parties to one litigation and to discourage simultaneous entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations, in respect of the same cause of action the same subject-matter and the same relief.
13. This is to obviate the possibility of two contradictory verdicts.
14. ' In the matter of Rehman v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi and two others 1983 PLC 210, the Division Bench of this Court it was held that in a grievance petition against the termination of service once the salaries and wages have been encashed by the Labour the right to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court extinguished. Similar point has been taken by a Division Bench in the case of Majeed Baig v. Fathey Ali Chemical Mills 1973 PLC 297.
15. ' In the case of Khizar Hayat v. Pakistan Railways Karachi, 1993, PLC 106, whilst discussing application under section 25-A it was held that jurisdiction of Labour Court can only be invoked by a worker who has to first bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing within three months from the cause of grievance, and unless this procedure is observed, the workmen cannot straightaway approach the Labour Court.
16. ' In the case of Nagina Silk Mills v. The Income Tax Officer Ward Lyallpur and others reported in PLD 1963, SC 322, the full Bench of this Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan whilst discussing Income Tax matters and the relevant for assessment of income held that time once begins to run never stops and is not extended unless legislature intervenes-- ' In the case of Board of Governors Aitchison College Lahore v. Punjab, Labour Appellate Tribunal and others, 2001 SCMR '1928. Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to invoke the jurisdiction of Presiding Officer, Labour Court an employer has to satisfy that he has worked as workmen either under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
17. Ordinance or IRO 1969. In the case of Abdul Sattar and another v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and others, reported in 2001 SCMR 1935, SC. In the case of Trustee of the Port of Karachi v.
18. Muhammad Saleem, reported in 1994 SCMR 2213, in the case of Karachi Pipe Mills' Employees Union Karachi v. Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. Karachi reported in 1992 SCMR 36, in the case of Hakim Ali v.
19. Muhammad Salim and another reported in 1992 SCMR 46, in the case of Abid Hussain and others v.
20. Aziz Fatima and others, reported in PLD 1995 SC 399, in the case of Cantonment Board Kharian Cantt through Executive Officer v. Muhammad Shafi, reported in PLD 1991 SC 400, in the case of Mst.
21. Iqbal Begum and another v. Maqbool-ur-Rehman, reported in PLD 1991 SC 407 in the case of Income Tax Officer, Company Cricle XII Karachi v. M/s. Shaikh Miran Bux Karam Bux of Mir Ajab Khan and another v. Ramzan and others reported in .1986 SCMR 1257, in the case of Muhammad Saeed and another v. Shaukat Ali, reported in 1982 SMR, 285, in the case of Akbar Ali Shah and 3 others v. Muhammad Shah and 3 others, reported in 1982 SCMR 286, in the case of Muhammad Hussain and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others, reported in 1975 SCMR, 304, in the case of Yaqeen-uddin and others v. Abdul Majid and others, reported in 1975 SCMR 305, in the case of Afghan National Bank v. Haji Khtar Ali Qazilbash and others, reported in 1998 PLC, 331, and in the case of Municipal Corporation, Sialkot through the Administrator v. Younis Masih and others reported in 198 PLC 336.
22. ' The above facts and the case laws relied upon by the counsel for the applicant clearly establishes certain basic facts. It is clear that the 13 respondents having once filed the case through the Union and once the case having been dismissed are now stopped from re-agitating the same issue by filing a fresh grievance petition. It is also clear that out of the 13 persons only 5 have not cleared the dues. The rest have cleared the dues and therefore, have no grievance. It is also clear that the grievance petition is barred by limitation. The mandatory period had lapsed. It is settled that if the petition does not show that the dismissal was in respect of any industrial disputes then petition under section 25-A of the IRO is not maintainable. It is also established from the record and based upon the case laws that the 13 persons who filed the petition before the Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O. Could not do so as the said section is for enforcement of predetermining and pre- existing right and not for determining right. It is, therefore, clear that the rights have to first exist and then alone can there be an application for enforcement. It is also settled that once the application is time-barred then each day's delay has to be accounted for. The respondents have failed to do so, It is repeatedly observed by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that not only the delay has to be explained but it is also mandatory that wherever the limitation is prescribed then that limitation has to be followed. The only ground on which the limitation can be excused is if the delay is explained. In the instant case no grounds have been shown for the delay in filing the original petition before the Labour Court. Based upon the facts and circumstances mentioned above and the plethora of case laws available on the subject by a short order the Revision Application were allowed and the above are the reasons.