2000 PLP 141 (PLC)

S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Services of employee employed for specific period were terminated on ground that "his services were no longer required" and employee had challenged said termination in grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Appointment of employee was made for a specific period and after its expiry, services of employee were terminated‑‑‑No guaranteed or secured right of employee having either been infringed or violated in any manner, grievance petition was rightly dismissed. Waqar A. Seth for Appellant. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for Respondent. Through this appeal under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance; 1969 (hereinafter to be called the Ordinance), the appellant has challenged the judgment, dated 19‑1‑1998, of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bannu, whereby grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as Assistant Fitter in the respondent Mills. His services were terminated with effect from 20‑7‑1996 on the ground that "his services were no longer required." The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, approached the learned National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad through petition under section 22‑A (8) (g) of the Ordinance along with miscellaneous application for the suspension of the operation of the termination order and took the plea that he was victimised on account of his Trade Union activities. The learned N.I.R.C., by interim order dated 30‑7‑1996 suspended the operation of the termination order. Resultantly, the respondent Mills, reinstated the appellant in service temporarily. The respondent Mills contested the petition before the Member N.I.R.C. who after proper inquiry dismissed the petition vide order, dated 22‑10‑1996. 3. After the dismissal of his petition, the services of the appellant were again terminated on 26‑10‑1996 although vide aforesaid order original termination order, dated 20‑7‑1996, was upheld. Thereafter, he served a grievance notice on the employer which not responded, therefore, he filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Ordinance for reinstatement in service with full back wages and benefits. The respondent contested the petition by filing its written statement on 5‑5‑1997. On 26‑11‑1997 learned counsel for the respondent Mills, submitted an application before the Labour Court, Bannu for the dismissal of the grievance petition on the grounds that it is hit by the principle of res judicata as similar petition was dismissed by the member N.I.R.C. on 22‑10‑1996. Reply to this application was filed by the petition. The learned Labour Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, accepted the application and dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant vide order, dated 19‑1‑1998, which is impugned herein... 4. Both the learned counsel for the parties were heard in support of their respective viewpoints and record was also perused in the light of their submission. 5. Section 22‑D of the Ordinance provides a right appeal of to the aggrieved person against the award or decision given by any Bench, and appeal can be filed within 30 days of such award or decision to the Commission. The petitioner after dismissal of his petition from the Bench of a Member N.I.R.C. did not avail the right of appeal before the Commission and instead approached the Labour Court for the same relief which had been denied to him by the Member N.I.R.C. The order of the Member N.I.R.C. attained finality under Section 22‑E of the Ordinance and such order, decision or judgment of the Commission cannot be called into question in any manner whatsoever before any Court or Authority. The Benches of the N.I.R.C. are empowered under section 22‑B(3) (a) of the Ordinance to perform and exercise such function as are performed and exercised by a Labour Court in relation to cases of unfair practice for enforcement of or redress of individual grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to any employer or worker by or under any law or any award or settlement. Since the aforesaid powers of the N.I.R.C. and the Labour Court are concurrent, therefore, the dispute decided by one forum cannot be re-agitated before the other and such re-agitation would be hit by the principle of res judicata. On merits also, the case of the appellant is without any substance as the appointment of the appellant was made for a specific period and after its expiry, his services were terminated, therefore, no guaranteed or secured right of the appellant has been either infringed or violated in any manner. There is no legal or factual flaw in the impugned order, of the learned Labour Court and the same is accordingly upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./224/Lab. (N.‑W. F. P.). Appeal dismissed.