' The sole issue which falls to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellant had served the required grievance notice upon his employer against the termination of his employment and refusal to pay him his legal dues.
2, The facts which form the background of this appeal shortly stated are, that the services of the appellant, who was employed as an Associate Editor of the Investment and Marketing Periodical, vide letter of appointment, dated 24-1-1467, were terminated with one months' notice, vide the respondent's letter, dated 8-3-1972. The appellant filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 3-A of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960, read with section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the Investment & Marketing Periodical did not fall within the definition of "Newspaper" for the purposes of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance. The matter was taken to the High Court in a Constitutional Petition and a Division Bench of the High Court held that the Periodical in question fell within the definition of Newspaper" as given in the aforesaid Ordinance and accordingly remanded the case to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits. On remand, the learned Labour Court again dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the fresh ground that it had not been established that the appellant had served the required grievance notice upon his employer.
3. Section 3 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960, makes the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (which has not been replaced by the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969, subject to the provisions of the Ordinance first named, applicable to working journalists as they apply to workmen as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance.
However, a separate grievance procedure for filing individual grievance petitions or complaints by working journalists was provided in the Working Journalists Ordinance by addition thereto of section 3-A by Ordinance VII of 1967. The grievance procedure requires an aggrieved working journalist to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing within 15 days of the cause of the grievance. It is the case of the appellant that he had in fact complied with this provision and served a grievance notice upon the Managing Director of the Periodical in which he was employed Mr. Hassan. A copy of this grievance notice, which is dated 15-3-1972 was filed by the appellant with his grievance petition. However, as pointed out by the learned Labour Court, there is no evidence beyond the solitary word of the appellant that he had served the said notice upon Mr. Hassan. The latter was examined before the learned Labou Court and he denied having received such notice. It was suggested to him that he had refused to receive the notice through it was offered to him. I Mr. Hassan had refused to receive the notice, the appellant should, in order to establish service of the notice, have either sent it by registered post to Mr. Hassan or at least complained to the Working Journalists' Union that his employer had refused.To accept his grievance notice, but the appellant failed to adopt either of these courses. If on the other hand, Mr. Hassan had accepted the grievances notice, the appellant should have obtained his signature on the duplicate copy in acknowledgment of its receipt and service, which admittedly was not done. Furthermore, I find that the copy of the grievance notice filed by the appellant with the grievance petition is not a carbon copy but is an original copy. This fact is an added circumstance suggesting that no grievance notice was served upon the employer by the appellant for it is hardly likely that the appellant would take the trouble of preparing 2 originals when a carbon copy would be more appropriate and could have been prepared without any additional trouble.
4. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the appellant has failed to establish that he had served the required grievance notice upon his employer. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.