JUDGMENT JUSTICE (R.) ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN - The appellant has challenged the validity of the order dated 6.2,2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed being incompetent.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant claiming to be Manager Booking at Railway Booking and Information Office, 289 Ghafoor Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Lahore without alleging his workmanship and without asserting the issuance of grievance notice upon the respondents filed the grievance petition before the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, It was averred by the appellant (grievance petitioner before the Labour Court) that on account of certain differences with the higher officers coupled with certain domestic problems he resigned from his post on 13.4.2004 which as per his claim Was accepted by the Competent Authority on 14.5.2004 despite his withdrawal of the resignation vide letter dated 11.5.2004. He, therefore, prayed for his reinstatement in service from the date of resignation considerng the intervening period on leave of the kind due.
3. The grievance petition was stoutly resisted by the department alleging inter alia that he was holding a managerial post and had never, claimed to be a workman, It was added that he had n6t asserted that he had given grievance notice before filing the petition. As for the reasons which obliged him to resign, his varying versions were denied and it was claimed that he submitted his resignation voluntarily which was duly accepted and he stood relieved of his duties and had also received his total dues from the department.
4. In the first instance the learned Labour Court allowed the grievance petition without realizing that it had failed to fulfill the mandatory requirements that he was a workman and had served the grievance notice upon the respondents. The order of the Labour Court was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 18.10.2006 remanding the case to the Labour Court on the following grounds:- "7. For the foregoing, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Labour Court where both the parties will have equal opportunity of pressing their respective claim qua the issuance or otherwise of the grievance notice. Learned labour Court may if feel necessary record evidence in this respect. Needless to mention that learned Labour Court will decide the matter through a speaking judgment with proper reasoning."
5. After re-hearing the ease and providing the chance, to the parties for proving their respective claims as directed by the Hon'ble High Court the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that no grievance notice whatsoever was ever served upon the respondents and consequently the grievance petition was dismissed.
6 . This subsequent order of the learned Labour Court as indicated above has been challenged before this Tribunal.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had appended a copy of the grievance notice duly issued to the respondents with the grievance petition and it has been verified by the Reader of the Court through his note dated 10.11.2004. This copy of the notice appeared to have been misplaced by the staff of the Court as such no fault can be attributed to the appellant. On the other hand, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that this is not an order of the Court but a note by the official of the Court who probably has written down mistakenly in routine, In fact it was the duty of the appellant to have issued the notice and to have appended a copy of the same with its receipt alongwith the grievance petition and then to have asserted in the grievance petition after issuance of the grievance notice which has never been done in this case. If at all, there had been some grievance notice it was the duty of the appellant to have appeared in the Court and to have proved the same which had Equally not been done.
9. The record shows that Mr. Bashir Ahmad Noori, Assistant Director Commercial Railways appeared as RW-1 and subjected himself to cross-examination whereas the appellant had never picked up the courage to come in the witness-box before the Labour Court and to be Subjected to cross-examination from the other side. Even otherwise he himself claims to be a Manager and does not utter a word that he is a workman in any sense, In this view of the matter he had.
Absolutely no authority to invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court and the Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain and try the grievance petition in the given circumstances of the case. As the Labour Court was not possessed of. The jurisdiction and to try the petition as such it has rightly dismissed the same.
10. No further issue needs to be discussed in view of this material point which disentitles the appellant to claim relief from the Labour Court.
11. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their on costs.