This appeal by the Management I directed against a decision of the learned IIIrd Labour Court, given on 30th August, 1980, allowing the grievance petition of the respondent workman, setting aside the orders of his dismissal from service and directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits.
2. The sole point involved in this case is whether a valid grievance notice was given by the respondent to the appellant prior to the filing by him of the grievance petition. The respondent has relied upon the grievance notices, dated 31st December, 1979. It has been admitted by the respondent that the said grievance notice does not bear his signature and that a co-worker, by name Abdul Latif, had not only sent the said notice to the appellants on behalf of the respondent but had also signed the respondent's name and he was only told of the matter after the said notice was sent by Abdul Latif. The essential pre-condition to the filing of a grievance petition under section 25-A, I,R.O., is the bringing of a grievance in writing to the notice of the employer, by the workman himself or through his shop-steward or collective bargaining agent. The Supreme Court, in the case of Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. examined the connotation of the word "himself", appearing after the word either in subsection (1) of section 25-A and while taking the view that the said word excludes the concept of "agency", observed as follows :- "Now looking at subsection (1) of section 25-A of the Ordinance, I find that the word "himself" is prefixed by the word "either" and coupled with the word "or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union". The word "either" means 'one or the other" and the word "through" denotes the concept of agency. Therefore, in construing the word "himself" the word "either" and "through" cannot be overlooked. The former refers to the alternatives while the latter means a medium Of agency. The1 word "himself" means "the emphatic form of he, him in his real character". Clearly, therefore, in using the word "either" the Legislature provided alternative to the workman or his agent such as the Shop Steward or the Trade Union ; and if the concept Of agency is to be regarded as inherent in the word "himself" then plainly it would be against its real meaning and this could not be the intention of the Legislature which has purposely used this word to avoid legal quibbles as rightly held in Hussain Textile Mills v. Muhammad Wag. The legislative intent seems to be to avoid interference by any other outside agency. It would appear from the scheme, of the legislation that the appearance through legal practitioners is restricted and wherever he is eligible to appear it has been so enacted. Section 49 of the Ordinance makes this intent obvious and in this view of the matter it would be anomalous to introduce the concept of agency in the word "himself" for in that eventuality the object of the law can easily be defeated."
3. Since the requirement of law is that the notice must' be given or the grievance must be brought to the notice of the employer by the worker himself, or through his Shop Steward or C.B.A. And as admittedly, in the instant case, the grievance notice was not given by the respondent but by co- worker, Abdul Latif, on behalf of the respondent, the proceeding base , on the grievance notice, including the filing of the grievance petition, I invalid. I would accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Labour Court. The amount deposited by the appellant toward back benefits of the respondent is ordered to be returned. PLD 1980 SC 80