' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- Since the captioned two appeals arise out of the similar circumstances, both are being. Disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Through these appeals the appellant workers have assailed the order, dated 14-10-2003 passed by Sindh Labour Court No,V, Karachi, whereby preliminary legal objections of the respondent- Management regarding maintainability of the grievance petitions filed by the appellants were upheld and the grievance petitions were summarily dismissed holding the same to be not maintainable.
3. The relevant facts, as contained in the memo. Of appeals, are that the appellants were employed by the respondent-Establishment and under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 they were "Newspapers Employees". Consequent upon the Award given by the 7th Wage Board, wages of all categories of workmen including the "Newspapers Employees" were increased with effect from 1-7-2000 retrospectively. Such benefit was not extended to the appellants. However, on their insistence for awarding such benefit to them the appellants were extended threats of termination unless they agree to reemployment through fake contractor. It appears that ultimately the services of the appellants were terminated on 14-2-2003 without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing on the ground that respondent-Management was suffering financial losses for last many months.
4. The appellants claimed to have served grievance notice upon the respondent-Management but the same were not responded. As such each of the appellants filed separate grievance petition under section 46 of I.R.O., 2002 praying therein for reinstatement in service with full back benefits.
5. The respondents filed written statement wherein they raised preliminary legal objections regarding maintainability of the grievance petitions on various grounds. A separate application was also moved with the prayer that the legal objections raised in the written statement may be decided in the first. Instance. The learned Labour Court accepted the legal objection of the respondent-Management to the extent that no prayer for reinstatement was made in the grievance notices and summarily dismissed the grievance petitions. Hence these appeals.
6. It was contended on behalf of the appellant workers that the learned Labour Court erred in holding that the grievance notices do not show that the workers were aggrieved by the termination of their services. Even otherwise, non-mention of prayer for reinstatement in the grievance notices, does not debar the workers from claiming such relief before the Labour Court. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the decision of Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2001 SCM R 565. It was further contended that the termination order is illegal as the same was not issued/passed by the competent authority viz. The employer.
7. Conversely, it was contended on behalf of the respondent-Management that grievance notices in respect of reinstatement were never served upon them. According to the respondents, the grievance notices were only in respect of the alleged dues of the appellants and did not ask for reinstatement. In the circumstances, it is argued that in the absence of prayer for reinstatement the grievance petitions were not maintainable, and were therefore, rightly dismissEed.
8. The arguments advanced on behalf of the parties have been considered and the material placed on the record has been thrashed out.
9. It is evidently clear from the pleadings that the respondent-Management never denied the receipt of a document claimed by the appellant workers as a grievance notice. The objection raised on behalf of the respondent-Management was that it can "not be termed as a grievance notice for reinstatement in service", as spelt out in para.4 of the written statement and clause (c) of the preliminary objections.
10. Therefore, the sole question to be determined in these appeals would be as to whether the letters dated 25-2-2003 (Annexure "B") served by the appellant workers upon the respondent- Management would fulfil the requirements of grievance notice as contained in section 46 of the I.R.O., 2002.
11. Before scrutinizing the contents of the letters in question served by the appellant workers claiming to be the grievance notices under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, it seems appropriate to have a bird's eye-view of the relevant provisions of section 46 of the Ordinance, 2002.
' It will be seen that the process of redress of individual grievance commences with the motion of a worker by way of bringing his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, award or settlement within a stipulated period either himself, or through his shop steward or the CBA. Then the employer has to consider such grievance and communicate his decision to the worker in writing in a specified period. However, if in case the employer fails to communicate such decision within such period or the worker concerned is dissatisfied with such decision, he may take the matter to the Labour Court if he so desires, within a period specified in the statute.
12. From the perusal of the above statutory provisions it becomes manifestly clear, that what is actually required of a worker is, that he has to inform his employer in writing about the cause of his grievance with regard to denial or breach of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, award or settlement in force.
13. A copy of the disputed notice along with its English translation has been annexed along with the memo. Of appeal as Annexure "B" and has not been disputed by respondents. Appellant Taufiq Ahmed in his notice has, inter alia, stated as under:-- "Respectfully submitted that I have been issued a letter dated 15th February, 2003 from the establishment management under which I have been immediately dismissed from service.
' While I have even not been informed about the reason of this harsh and immediate step.
' Whereas I am affiliated from (with) circulation department from (for) about eighteen years.
' Apart from all these my 2-1/2 months salary is payable by the establishment.
' Furthermore my other dues which are about more than two lacs may need consideration.
' Mohtaram Editor Sahib I, because of this immediately separation from the establishment is (am) suffering from financial crises.
' It is, therefore, requested that at least at present pass immediate order of payment of 2-1/2 months salary may please be issued so my financial crises may for the time being be resolved."
' From the contents of the grievance notice, it is manifestly clear that the appellant worker has stated in categorical terms that he is very much aggrieved by termination of his services. The words "Apart from all these" and "furthermore" clearly show that apart from termination of his services, the appellant worker has also other grievances regarding his salary and other dues.
14. Likewise, appellant Muhammad Akhtar Malhi in his grievance notice annexed to the appeal along with translation has stated, "..... I have been informed by Mr. Shahab Siddique on a blank paper that from 15th February, 2003 my services have been terminated". The grievance notice further states, "I only want to be informed that whether my services are really not in need". As stated above, the sole purpose of issuing grievance notice is to bring to the notice of the employer/ Management that the concerned worker is "aggrieved" by any action on the part of the Management.
15. On careful consideration of the above discussed communications, I am fully convinced that the requirements of law were satisfactorily complied with, so far as brining the grievance to the notice of Employer is concerned.
16. It will be appreciated to state that the Legislature has not prescribed any pro forma or format of grievance notice. Even in law, no provision has been made for service of grievance notice through a legal practitioner. This by itself was adequate enough to assume that the legislature intended to avoid all kinds of technicalities, so far as dispensation of labour adjudication was concerned. It is now well-settled principle of interpretation of statute, that a statute should be interpreted in such a manner to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Judicial forums are not only expected but are always required to 'keep in mind, that mere technicalities, unless offering any insurmountable hurdle, should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice.
17. It may further be added that the beneficial laws are to be construed liberally. The Industrial Relations Ordinance is basically beneficial legislation which provides for the protection of the rights of labour classes and has to be interpreted to advance the cause of workers. Moreover, for proper dispensation of justice effect must be given to the substance and not to the form. Indeed the logic of words must yield to the logic of realities.
18. In the light of the above said object, such disputes are required to be resolved after affording full, satisfactory and exhaustive opportunity to the parties to place their view points and supporting material before the Labour Court for the complete and effectual adjudication of issues involved in the matter. The summary disposal of grievance petition in a cursory, hasty and slipshod manner is highly deplorable as it gives an unfortunate impression of throttling the grievance of the workers at a initial stage. Obviously it would not be in consonance with the object of promulgation of remedial legislation such as Labour Laws.
19. Indeed the Labour Court proceeded to pass mindless and perverse order, in a most capricious manner, whereby the appellant- workers were thrown out of the Court, for none of their fault. Such orders could never be sustained in law and must be struck down.
20. As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, it is declared that the grievance notices were properly and legally served upon the respondent-Management. The cases are remanded to the Labour Court for deciding the grievance petitions on merits in accordance with law in an expeditious manner.