Law:

Section:

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--We propose to dispose of the above-mentioned three High Court Appeals by a common judgment as the points of law and facts involved in these cases are identical.   The appellants in the above cases are employees of the respondent. They were charged with negligence and carelessness in performance of duties on 14-1-1983, and after domestic enquiry their services were terminated on 20th June, 1983. The petitioners preferred separate grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.) before the Labour Court at Karachi. The respondent on being served with the notice of the grievance petitions raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after hearing arguments of the parties held that the grievance petitions filed by the petitioners were maintainable in view of the decision in the case of Trustees of Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani 1983 S C M R 769. The respondent who were dissatisfied with the above order of the Labour Court challenged the same by filing C.P.Nos.90, 91 and 92 of 1985 in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution which have been allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 31-5-1987. The learned Single Judge held the order of the Labour Court taking cognizance of the grievance petitions of the appellants as illegal and without lawful authority and accordingly quashed the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. The appellants have now challenged the above order of the learned Single Judge in the above High Court Appeals.   It may be mentioned here at the very outset that the above-mentioned appeals are not argued on merits by the learned Counsel for the parties in view of the decision of this Bench in the case of Zahoor Ahmed v. Trustees of Port of Karachi and others C.P. No.831/1981 decided on 23-8-1989. The learned Counsel for the parties agreed that in view of the above decision, the order of the learned Single Judge on merits cannot be maintained. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the…