' Atiq Ali Bokhari filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No. IX. Multanl In this petition he did not mention whether he had served any Grievance Notice upon his employer or not. The Management in their written statement raised several preliminary objections including the following :- "That no proper Grievance Notice as understood in law has been served."
' The Management also filed another application under Order XIV, rule 11 of Cole of Civil Procedure praying that legal objections must be taken up prior to merits. Accordingly the Labour Court without recording any evidence whatsoever, vide impugned decision dated 29th January. 1981 dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no mention in the petition that appellant had served Grievance Notice upon the employer. Hence this appeal.
2. No doubt in the Grievance Petition filed before the Labour Court there is no mention of the fact that the appellant had served any Grievance Notice upon his employer but the requirement of section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is the service of Grievance Notice upon the employer and not mentioning the same in the petition. Suppose it is mentioned in the petition that Grievance Notice was served while in fact it was not so, the Labour Court would dismiss the petition. Conversely if it is not mentioned so in the petition but in fact Grievance Notice has been served upon the employer then Labour Court would not be justified to dismiss the petition but should afford an opportunity to the parties to show whether in fact Grievance Notice has been served upon the employer or not. In other words the requirement of law is actual service of Grievance Notice upon the employer and not mention of it in the petition. The appellant claims that he did serve the Grievance Notice upon his employer and that is why that the management in their written reply has stated that no proper Grievance Notice as understood in law has been served. According to him if notice had not been served then it would have been complete denial of the Notice. I feel that in the large interest of justice the Labour Court should have afforded an opportunity to the appellant to establish whether in fact he served the required Grievance Notice upon his employer before invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and similar opportunity of the Labour Court to the Management to, rebut the same. Mere mention or omission of Grievance Notice in the petition is not sufficient to decide whether in fact notice was served or not. Such omission may be due to bad drafting or carelessness on the part of the draftsman. Service of Grievance Notice is a pure question of fact and can be decided after recording evidence of the parties and not by permeation or omission of it in the petition.
Moreover such technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of justice.
3. For the foregoing reasons I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned decision of the Labour Court and remand the case back to it to decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties to produce their respective evidence.