1. SALMAN ANSARI, J.--- This Labour Appeal has been filed under section 47(3) of the I.R.O., 2002. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment, dated 28-10-2004 passed by the Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No,II, at Karachi, whereby appellant's Application No,95 of 2003 filed under section 46(3) of the I.R.O., 2002 was dismissed. The contentions of the appellant are that he was employee in the respondent's establishment as permanent worker and he was removed from his services without any notice or order in writing in violation of the mandatory provisions of Standing Order 12(3) from which the appellant had complained before the Labour Directorate and both the parties were summoned to a joint meeting to come with the complete record but the respondent failed to attend the meeting and left with no option; a Grievance Notice was sent to the respondent by Registered Post, receiving no response a petition was filed which was dismissed by the learned Labour Court. It is contended that the Labour Court has incorrectly decided that no notice of the Grievance Petition was received nor the appellant proved such receipt by the respondent hence, the learned Labour Court had decided that the compliance of section 46(1) of I.R.O., 2002 provides that the Grievance Notice was to be brought to the notice of the employer in writing and sending notice by itself was not sufficient compliance and held that no grievance notice was served upon the respondent, hence, grievance petition was found not maintainable and dismissed, these findings were against the provisions of section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which found that service by way of Registered Post A/D was sufficient service, reliance is placed upon Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. v. Kundan Khan 1982 PLC 676, District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi v. Ghazi Khan and 5 others 1994 PLC 466, wherein it has been held that "the question that the grievance notices had .Not been served need not tarry us, because the respondents had produced the Post Receipts and under section 26 of the General Clauses Act, the presumption would be that the appellants were duly served. Admittedly there are no letters of appointment to any of these respondents and no attempt has been made to show the nature and the duration of their employment. Again there are no letters while removing them from service.
2. Under the circumstances the termination of their services is unwarranted and insupportable".
3. ' Reliance, is also placed upon Mrs. Parveen Chaudhry v. VIth Senior Civil Judge 1st Class. Karachi and another PLD 1976 Kar.
4. 416.
5. ' The learned counsel has further contended that in the present petition notice was issued and received by the respondent on the same address as before the learned Labour Court where he had appeared, filed his written statement and defended his case but the contention of the respondent before the Labour Court was that he was not served with the grievance notice, hence the matter was decided accordingly. Although the evidence going un-rebutted should have been accepted by the learned Labour Court which was not done, hence placing reliance upon Mst. Nur Jehan Begum v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCM R 2300, wherein it has been held that: "Witness was not cross-examined on a material part of his evidence. Inference would be that truth of same was accepted by the other side. Statement of a witness which was material to the controversy of the case particularly stating his case, when not challenged in cross-examination, then such unchallenged statement should be given full credit and usually accepted as true, unless displaced by reliable, cogent and dear evidence".
6. ' Hence, it is argued that the judgment of the learned Labour Court be set aside and the appeal be allowed as prayed for.
7. ' Respondent was served by Courier Service, by Bailiff, who had pasted the notice on the outer door of the address given as well as by publication in the daily "Jisarat" Karachi, dated 24-12-2005, but had failed to appear before this Court. Service was held good by order, dated 19-1-2006: ' Considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the R&P of this case. In the impugned judgment at Issue No,1, it was observed as under:--- "In cross-examination by representative of respondent, applicant denied if weaving department was given on labour contract to Contractor Asghar or that he was employee of Contractor Asghar.
8. From this suggestion at least respondent admits that applicant was working in the factory of respondent."
9. ' Labour Court had placed reliance upon PLD 1972 SC 25, in which it was held that "written statement cannot be treated as evidence". The learned Labour Court continues in its judgment. "In the present case the plea of labour contract in respect of weaving Department has been taken in the written statement and no evidence has been led by the respondent". Hence, Labour Court had accepted the plea raised by the respondent in the written statement who had not produced any witness for cross-examination and had accepted the statement that the grievance notice was not served upon the employer nor brought to his notice, the learned Labour Court had not accepted the service by Registered Post upon the respondent as good service for consideration of the service through Registered Post. I would refer to section 27 of the General Clauses Act which reads as fellows:--- "Meaning of service by post.--- Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or any other expression is used, then unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
10. ' This point is further elaborated in a decision of the High Court passed in Labour Appeal No,422 of2004, as follows:--- "From perusal of the above-quoted provision of law, it is manifestly clear that once a letter/notice is sent by registered post at the proper and correct address of the addressee, it is deemed to have been served regardless of the return of acknowledgement receipt. Unless anything contrary to such sending has been proved the said letter/notice would be deemed to have been served, the moment the same has been delivered in the ordinary course of post at the address of the addressee. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the appellant had sent the grievance notice, as is evident from the observation of the learned Labour Court in the impugned judgment, 'In the present case sending of the notice is proved from the Photostat Copy of the postal receipt, but service has not been proved,"
11. ' So far as the fact, as to whether the grievance notice was sent by the appellant at the proper address of the respondents or not, suffice it to say that the process of the Labour Court were sent to the respondents at the same address as given in the grievance notice and ultimately, representative of the respondents put his appearance and sought adjournments. It is observed in the impugned judgment, "From these two applications it appeared that at least process of the Court reached at the prescribed address of the respondents".
12. ' The above decision fully addressees the points in issue which were disputed before the learned Labour Court one being the service of the grievance notice and the other whether the respondent had appeared in response to the notice served of the petition before the Labour Court and both were decided in the affirmative in the finding quoted above. I rely upon PLD 1976 Kar. 416, wherein, it was held that "Postal receipt an official document carrying presumption of genuineness".
13. Hence, in view of the above discussion and citations referred to and relied upon finding that the grievance notice had been served upon the respondent considering the learned Labour Court had concluded that it was admitted by the respondent that the appellant was employee of their establishment hence, under these circumstances, I find that there exists relationship of employee and employer and the appellant had been removed from his service in violation of provisions of the section 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
14. Ordinance, 1968, and hence, for the above reasons I, set aside the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 28-10-2004 and allow this appeal and finding that payment of 25 months of pay last drawn and house rent if admissible is awarded as compensation to the appellant in lieu of re- instatement to be paid by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of this order to be just and proper under the circumstances. Copy of this order has to be posted to the respondent by the office through Courier without any delay.
15. ' This appeal according stands disposed of.