ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal calls in question the validity of the order dated 6-8-2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed in view of the grievance notice having been given through the Advocate.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the grievance notice is nothing but an intimation to the employer to the effect that the workman proposes to file a grievance petition against him. It may be through the workman himself or through may be his counsel.
3. On the other hand it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the intention of the labour legislation is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and if the workman himself proposes to file a claim against his employer there is every chance of rapprochement between the two contending parties. If it is through a lawyer the law does not recognize it as a valid grievance notice as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1980 SC 80.
4. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
5. The law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authority referred to above explicitly requires the workman himself to issue the notice and the agency of Advocate has been disallowed for issuance of such a notice. In an identical situation their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were pleased to hold:- 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 words "or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union". The word "either" means "one or the other" and the word "through" denotes that concept of agency. Therefore, in construing the word "himself" the words "either" and "through" cannot be overlooked. The former refers to the alternative while the latter means 3 medium of agency. The word "himself" means "the emphatic form of he, him in his real character". Clearly therefore, in using the word "either" the Legislature provided alternatives 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 Ishaq. 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." (PLD 1980 SC 80)
6. A notice issued by the appellant through an advocate was not in accordance with the law referred to above and the proceedings based on such grievance notice are clearly invalid. In this view of the position reference to a general observation describing the meaning and import a grievance is altogether redundant.
7. In this view of the matter, the appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.