1. ' Petitioner Zan Iqbal was employed as Liaison, incharge with rospondent No, 2, the Esso Pakistan Fertilizer & Co. His services were terminated by a letter dated 2-8-1972. The petitioner sent a grievance notice to his employer, through his Advocate Mr. Farman Ali on 10th August 1972. Having failed to receive a satisfactory reply to this notice the petitioner moved an application before the Sind Labour Court on 2-10-1972, but withdrew the same fearing that his notice, not having been signed by him, may not be held to be an improper notice. Consequently, he sent a second grievance notice on 3-10-1972 under his own signature. This was replied to by the employers by a letter dated 18-10-1972, which was received by the petitioner on 20-10-1972. On 18th December 1972, the petitioner filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court at Hyderabad. This application was returned to the petitioner on 26-3-1973 for presentation before the Junior Labour Court. By an amendment of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, through Ordinance XLVIII of 1972, provision was made for the creation of Junior Labour Courts. Although this amending Ordinance was promulgated on 6th November 1972, and published in the Gazette of Pakistan on 10th November 1972, but the Junior Labour Courts were actually established on 20th December 1972. Consequently an application was duly presented before the Junior Labour Court No, 12 at Sukkur on 27th March 1973.
2. ' An objection on the ground of limitation was taken before the Junior Labour Court which was rejected. On appeal such objection was upheld, and consequently present petition was filed. In order that the question of limitation be decided it is necessary to determine as to which of the two notices was a validly issued notice. Mr. Khalid Ishaque contends, and rightly so, that once limitation starts running it cannot be stopped. He further contends that the earlier notice given by the petitioner on 10-8-1972, through his Advocate, was a validly given notice and, therefore, petition presented before the Sind Labour Court on 18-12-1972 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed by section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. On the other hand, Mr. Maroof Ali Khan contends that as the law requires that the notice under subsection (1) of section 25-A of the I.
3. R.0. Should have been given by a workman himself and, therefore, a notice sent by a workman through anybody else, including an Advocate, is not a valid notice. This submission is made in view of the principle that when a law requires certain thing to be done in a particular manner it should be done only in that manner or not done at all.
4. ' There is a conflict of views on this point, even in judgments of this Court. Abdul Hai Qureshi, J. In Hazarat Muhammad Yousuf v. Dawood Hosiery Mills, has held that the purpose and intention of law is to inform the Management about the grievance and it cannot be said that the manner of providing such information has to be restricted only to the worker bringing such grievance to the notice of his employer himself and not through his recognised agent or Advocate. It was also observed that in the absence of clear bar against notice being given by an Advocate it could not be held that the notice so given would not be a valid one.
5. ' Subsequently the same issue came before Mir Khuda Bux Marri, J. Who in Syed Mahmood Hussain v. Sind Labour Court, took note of the view of Qureshi, J. But disagreed with it, and held that the notice contemplated by section 25-A could be given only through one of the three agencies envisaged by that section, namely, (0 by workman himself, (ii) through shop steward, or WO through the Trade Union. Marri, J. Came to the conclusion, while relying upon the cases of Karachi Union of Employers and Monks v. Jackson, that the notice through an attorney or an Advocate is not envisaged.
6. In view of the fact that two Single Judges of this Court have held contrary views on the same point it would be proper if the controversy is resolved by a more authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench. I would, therefore, direct that this petition be placed before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the conflict. The point for determination would be if a notice, as contemplated by section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or by any other provisions of the same Ordinance, can be validly given by the workman through his agent, attorney, or an Advocate.
7. PLD 1975 Kar. 76 P L I 1975 Kar. 239 P L 1) 1961 SC 57 (1876) 1 C P'D 683