Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI11 of 1969)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ S. 25‑A‑‑‑Section 25‑A indicates redress of individual grievance, but workers having common grievance out of a common cause of action can make a joint application to Labour Court. (b) Words and phrases‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ "Common" and "similar", meaning and connotation‑‑'Common" means "shared among several", "owned by several jointly", "belonging or pertaining to many or to majority"‑‑‑Word "similar" had been defined as "nearly corresponding; resembling in many respects; somewhat like; having a general likeness, also some times exactly like; identical; exactly corresponding". (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ S. 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance notice‑‑‑Grievance notice, had to be addressed personally by aggrieved workers and not through instrumentality of a lawyer or an advisor. DECISION These appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court by which the petition presented by the respondents jointly under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. came to be allowed. 2. The facts forming the background of the case are that the petitioners were appointed by the respondents on 6‑6‑1969, 19‑8‑1969 and 24‑6‑1969 respectively. On the 31st of May, 1990 they were informed through a letter that as they were going to attain the age of superannuation on the 30th of June, 1990 after reaching the age of 60 years they could collect their dues admissible to them. This notice was challenged by the petitioners before the Labour Court. 3. In this very context it might be mentioned that as per Written Statement filed therein and which has been placed on the record with the present case, there appears to have been a settlement dated 23‑2 1968 between the workers and the Management which was in the following terms: "It is agreed that all such workers who at the time of the employment slid not give a specific date of birth and only mentioned the year of birth shall be retired from company's employment on 30th of June of the year of retirement etc. etc.…