1992 PLP 1308 (PLC(CS))

1980 PLC 655; Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani 1983 SCMR 769 and Zahoor Ahmed v. The Trustees of the Port of Karachi 1990 PLC 14 ref. M.M. Jeelani for Appellants. Date of hearing: 5th May, 1992. The appellants were working in different capacities with the respondent Company and in the month of December 1988 had tendered their resignations. However they were called upon to continue on for the notice period ending 31st December, 1988. They had collected all the dues after their resignations had become effective and later on laid a claim for the payment of 3-1/2 months' salary by way of bonus as per settlement. As the request remained unheeded they had presented a petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed on the ground that workmen who had left the job after resigning, were not entitled to press claim for any dues under --5-A, IRO' Reliance was placed on a decision of this Tribunal reported in 1980 PLC 655 in which it was held that a workman who had resigned was no longer a workman and was not entitled to make a petition under section 25-A regarding any dues etc.

2. Mr. Jeelani learned counsel for the appellant tried to meet this contention by referring to the cases of Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani 1983 SCMR 769 and Zahoor Ahmed v. The Trustees of the Port of Karachi reported in 1990 PLC 14.

3. In the Supreme Court judgment the question whether the definition clause ousted a dismissed employee from seeking remedy under section 25-A of the IRO was left open. However it was held that recourse to section 25-A, IRO was available to a workman who had no grievance in respect of any right guaranteed by or "under any law". However in the latter case which is a judgment of Sindh High Court it was explicitly laid down that a petition of a dismissed employee of the KPT was maintainable before the Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O.

4. In my humble opinion, the 2 cases cited above are distinguishable. In the instant appeals before me all the 3 appellants had resigned to explore better prospects in life. They had collected all their dues, and passed on receipts concluding with the following lines "received a sum of Rs:

on account of my resignation from service. There remain no dues payable to me. I declare that I have no any further claim outstanding against the company of any nature whatsoever". Their remedies, if any, would lie elsewhere and not under the IRO.

5. The petitions have been very properly dismissed and I will dismiss all the three appeals in limine, by this common order. H.B.T./2055/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.