1988 PLP 979 (PLC(CS))

Appellant in person. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 21st March, 1988. These are two sets of appeals filed by the appellants, against a common impugned order, dated 8-12-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who had dismissed both the grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 jointly tiled by the respective set of appellants. As a common point of law is involved in both these appeals, therefore, I would also dispose them of by this single Decision.

2. Brief facts of the case in Appeal No. Hyd. 9/88 were that the appellants claimed to have been working in the respondent establishment but, all of a sudden they were served with a joint termination of services order, dated 4-6-1987 by post giving a notice to 45 workers that their services had been terminated, so, being aggrieved, the appellants had also served upon the respondent establishment their joint grievance notice on 211-7-1087 followed by their joint grievance petition before the learned Labour Court agitating therein that their alleged termination from service was mala fide and without any lawful justification as well as in violation of Standing Order I I-A. Against this, the respondent establishment had resisted the petition on the main ground that as the owner of the establishment was a Parda nasheen lady and since her son had refused to run the establishment, therefore, there was no alternative with her but to lease it out to a contractor and out of 45 terminated employees, 13-14 workers had already joined the new contractor, thus, they were not entitled to maintain the grievance petition.

3. As regards the case in Appeal No. HYD-10/88 they also claimed that their services were also unlawfully terminated, so, being aggrieved they had also served grievance notice followed by their joint grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969. Against this, the main and only ground of resistance on behalf of the respondent establishment was that there is nothing on record to prove the relationship of master and servant between these appellants and the respondent establishment, therefore, the averments of the respondent establishment that none of these appellants was their employee had gone unrequited, hence, they were not liable to maintain their joint petition which was fit for dismissal.

4. After recording the evidence of both the parties the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence these two separate sets of appeals.

5. Today, when the case was called for hearing. Mr. S.P. Lodhi was present on behalf of the appellants, while, the respondent was present in person and has submitted legal objection on the maintainability of the present two appeals as both of them were not submitted before this Tribunal by the appellants, in person, as being aggrieved person or persons. It is a well settled law that only an aggrieved person is competent to file his grievance either before the learned Labour Court or before this Tribunal or before any other authority and none else. t I have carefully perused the titled page of each of these appeals and find that there had been clearly mentioned that `presented today through Mr. S.P. Lodhi. Hence, in view of the consistent view of this Tribunal as well as the other superior Courts, the present appeals are not competent and liable to be legally maintained. I, therefore, dismiss both these appeals as not legally cntertainable. As regards the impugned order, I also find nothing wrong with it, so, it must be maintained.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present two appeals arc accordingly dismissed. A.E./1274/Lb. S. Appeals dismissed.