1999 PLP 348 (PLC)

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 21‑11‑1996 of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby the order, dated 12th September, 1996 of learned Vth Labour Court, Karachi, reinstating the petitioner in service with full back benefits, was set aside. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed by respondent No.3, the employer of Marubeni Power Development Project as "Boy‑cum‑Helper" in the month of August, 1977 with an assurance of permanent job, subject to his conduct, abilities, and performance, but no appointment letter was issued to him. It is alleged that since August, 1977 without any break, he served the respondent No.3. It is also his case that on several occasions he was compelled/directed for submitting the applications for job. He has claimed that on 15‑8‑1991 he requested for increase in salary and that on very day 'advance notice for termination of service' was served upon him, which, inter alia, stated that he, if so desired, could have the service certificate. It appear that on 31st August, 1991 such certificate was issued which in the last mentioned as under:‑‑ "We regret that we will have to release him from our organization purely due to completion of the aforesaid project. We wish him a very success in his next job opportunities and bright future." Being aggrieved by the termination order, the Petitioner served grievance notices upon respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and thereafter filed grievance Petition, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the concerned Labour Court, which was allowed and he was re?instated in service with all back benefits by order, dated 12‑9‑1996. The respondent No.3 challenged said order and the Appeal was allowed by the order, which has been impugned in this Petition. The case of the respondent No.3 is that it is a "Japanese Company" and takes individual contracts from time to time in Pakistan for the purpose of erection of Power Plants for WAPDA and/or KESC. It is alleged that since the projects are awarded after open bid through process of tenders, the company is not sure if it will bid for another project on completion of one project or as to whether it will be awarded or not any other project in Pakistan. Accordingly, it is urged that the work of the respondent is essentially of a temporary nature and for a limited duration. Further, it is said that the respondent No.3 was awarded a project known as "KESC Bin Qasim Thermal Power Station Pipri Unit No.5." It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner applied for employment on 18‑7‑1990 and said project was completed in August, 1991. Since the petitioner was aware of the above position, he had moved an application to the respondent requesting for grant of a contract of "lunch at SITE Office", stating therein that said project was "at the final stage". According to respondent, it was evident that the petitioner was aware that the project was near completion and‑he would be rendered surplus. It is alleged that on 20‑9‑1991 the Petitioner had received his legal dues including Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Earned Wages, and acknowledged the same as per letter of said date. It is also the case of the respondent that voluntarily an offer of extra amount of Rs.20,000 was made to the Petitioner, although the respondent was not under any obligation to pay said amount. Mr.Gohar Iqbal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of clause (3) of standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commerce Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the service of the Petitioner could not be terminated, nor he could be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except the reason for the action taken. Learned counsel argued that in the termination order, dated 15th August, 1991 no reason was shown. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner was appointed by said company and not for said project, though on 18-7-1990 he had sent an application for job to the Project Manager. As against above, Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the termination order of the petitioner is not to be read in isolation to the earlier letter written by the petitioner himself, wherein he himself mentioned about completion of the project. He also argued that the petitioner, having accepted his entire dues in full and final settlement of his claim, could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and also of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is evident from the Petitioner's letter Page‑65 Exh.6) that he was fully. aware about completion of the project and for said reason requested for providing him catering services for future project at the construction site. It is not disputed that said project has been completed nor there is any plea of mala fide against' the Company. On the contrary, irrefutable evidence is available on record to show that the Company had appreciated the work of the petitioner. It being so, there was no reason for the Company to remove him from the job, except the fact that the project was completed. It is not the case of the Petitioner that after his removal somebody else was appointed in his place. Since the respondent No.3 is a Foreign Organization and was working for specific assignment which was completed, the Petitioner, after having become surplus could not challenge is termination. Termination. He was well‑aware about the reason of termination of his service. No prejudice was caused to him in that regard. The petitioner admittedly received his dues as per letter, dated 20‑9‑1991, which included salary of 24 days, over time, gratuity and leave encashment. Mr. Gohar lqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that said letter is a "Pay Roll Sheet" and was not a document of final settlement. In Monthly Pay Roll Sheet Gratuity is not paid. Learned counsel failed to offer and satisfactory explanation regarding receipt of gratuity. It appears that although the payment was made on Pay Roll Sheet, but in fact, it was in final settlement of claim of the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that a workman, voluntarily having received all dues in full and final settlement of account ceases to be an aggrieved person and has no grievance left on the basis of which he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The fact g that the petitioner had obtained Service Certificate indicated that he was satisfied and for that reason he had accepted willingly all his dues. The respondent voluntarily had offered an amount of Rs.20,000 to the Petitioner. We order that said amount be paid to the Petitioner by respondent No.3 within month from the date he approaches said respondent for its payment. On 15‑5‑1998 after hearing the arguments, we had dismissed this petition in limine alongwith the listed applications and these are the reasons for short order announced on above date. M.B.A./G‑79/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.