' The appellant was employed as Service Boy in the State Bank of Pakistan, the respondents berlin.
His services were terminated on 14th May, 1980. He challenged the orders of termination of his services by way of a grievance petition made under section 25-A., I. R.
0. His grievance petition was dismissed by the learned Vth Labour Court by its decision, dated 10th January, 1981, on the ground that the requisite notice given by the appellant to the respondent- Bank was invalid, as it was neither given by the appellant himself nor it was given through his Shop Steward or the C. B. A., but through an Advocate. The appellant feeling aggrieved against the said decision has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. It is the case of the appellant himself that he had served a grievance notice, dated 15th June 1980, upon the employer through his Advocate. The Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Husssa in v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No, K-48/78, has held that a notice through an Advocate is invalid and does not fulfil the requirement of subsection (1) of section 25-A, I.R.O., and consequently a grievance petition founded upon such a notice is not maintainable. It was, however, submitted by Mr. Alvi, the learned counsel for the appellants that in addition to a notice through the Advocate, given on 15th August, 1980 the appellant had given a notice, dated 14th September 1980, to the respondent-Bank and this notice was given by the appellant himself. The first notice through the Advocate could have been ignored if this second notice had been in time.
The requisite notice under subsection (1) of section 25-A, I. R. O., has to be given to the employer within three months of the grievance having occurred to the appellant. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the services of the appellant were terminated on, 14th May, 1980. As such, the grievance notice had to be served upon the employer within three months of the said date, i,e, by 13th August, 1980. The second grievance notice thus was served upon the employer more than a month after the period of limitation had expired. Mr. Alavi, however, sought to argue that as at the relevant time the appellant was misled on account of the conflict of decisions in the High Court and genuinely believed that a notice through an Advocate was valid, the delay in giving the second notice should be condoned. It may, however. Be pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd., was given on 8th March 1980, even before the termination of services of the appellant. After the said decision, the issue whether notice through an Advocate was valid or invalid was finally settled and no further dispute or doubt was entertainable thereafter. As such, the giving of notice by the appellant through an Advocate cannot be considered to be on account of any genuine error on the part of the appellant or his Advocate as a point of law.
3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same in limine.