' SHAKEEL AHMED BALOCH, J.--- This judgment disposes of Constitutional Petition No,389 of 2012 filed by the petitioner Wahid Bakhsh son of Qadir Bakhsh against the judgment dated 22nd August, 2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court Balochistan, Quetta (hereinafter referred as "the Labour Court"), whereby the application under section 41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act of 2008") filed by the petitioner was dismissed and against the judgment dated 24th April, 2012 (hereafter the judgments dated 22nd August, 2011 and 24th April, 2012 referred as, "the impugned judgments") passed by learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Balochistan Quetta (hereinafter referred as, "the Appellate Tribunal"), whereby appeal under section 55(3) of the Act of 2010 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 41 of the Act of 2008 before the Labour Court stating therein that on 1st April, 1985 he was appointed as daily wages employee as "Clerk" in SANDOZ Pak. Ltd. And subsequently on 1st October 1988 he was- declared as permanent employee, where after he was appointed as General Clerk and was confirmed on 1st January 1989 and the petitioner performed his duties on the said post till the year 1996. It is further averred in the application that in the year 1997 he was transferred to Quetta and was posted as P.C. Operator by demoting him from the post of Store Keeper. However, being a senior most employee, besides his own duties, he was also assigned the duties of Accounts Officer and Zonal Distribution, but neither his salary was enhanced nor his cadre was changed. In the year 1996 Messrs SANDOZ Pak Ltd. And CIBA, GEIGY were merged in Messrs NOVARTIS Pharma Pak Ltd. And all the staff/employees of SANDOZ Pak Limited and CIBA, GEIGY were transferred/shifted to the pay- role of Messrs NOVARTIS Pharma Pakistan Ltd., without calling for any resignation with continuation of their services. It is important to mention here that in the year 1999 name of the company was changed from distribution of Lassani to that of Messrs NOVARTIS Pharma Pakistan Limited, whereas the petitioner was asked to resign and he was further told that the authorities are going to issue letter of enterprise-4 to him with all benefits and salary, which was designed by the petitioner on the pretext that since most of the staff of LASANI Pak Limited were transferred/shifted to the pay- role of Messrs NOVARTIS Pharma Pakistan Limited,. And the petitioner also dealt with likewise. The authorities placed two letters before the petitioner i,e, one letter of Eneterprise-4 and other one was termination letter of petitioner, the petitioner was further asked that they do not have any head counts to transfer him at the pay role of NOVARTIS and it was further assured to the petitioner that his salary is also not being reduced, as such, under compelling circumstances the petitioner submitted his resignation and accepted Enterprise-4 letter on the same day and same company i,e, reducing his provident fund, gratuity, medical allowance and as well as overtime rate besides reducing his yearly leaves from 40 to 14 days and the petitioner was retained as temporary employees from being permanent employee. Thereafter another letter was issued to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner was the permanent employee of their Organization from 1st October 1988 to 31st October, 1999 and he left the service on his own accord. The said contents are absolutely false; that all the correspondence with the petitioner was being made during this period from the LASANI's platform by the same signatory who had issued permanency letter to the petitioner, hence in this manner the petitioner was misguided. The resignation of the petitioner was obtained and he was issued third appointment letter dated 1st October, 2000 of Grace Enterprises (which presently does not exist), but again the resignation of the petitioner was obtained and on 10th January, 2000 again he was appointed in NOVARTIS Pharma Pakistan Ltd.; that all the companies i,e, SANDOZ, LASANI, Enterprise-4 were/are being governed by Messrs NOVARTIS Pharma. The petitioner was assigned original designation of Accounts Officer and additional Charge of Zonal Distribution Manager, but again his resignation was obtained and he was deprived of his other benefits of gratuity etc. And the petitioner was appointed in Messrs Parazulsus Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. And the services of the petitioner were availed on probationary basis and vide letter dated 17th October, 2007 the petitioner was suspended from his service and on the same subject he was issued another letter dated 25th October, 2007, which was duly replied, but subsequently his services were reinstated on 15th November, 2007, whereas on 27th February, 2008 vide letter/notice the petitioner was terminated from his service; that civil suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge-IV Quetta and on appeal the petitioner was directed to initiate proceedings in the proper forum, hence instant application was filed.
3. On service of notice, the respondent No,1 filed his written statement and refuted the claim of the petitioner by way of raising certain legal as well as factual grounds. Suffice to state here that initially the petitioner arrayed Messrs Parazelsus as respondent No,1, while Messrs Novartis Pharama as respondent No,2, but on his own application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. The name of respondent No,2 was deleted from the application. The learned Labour Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the applicant is a worker or workman in terms of provisions of Industrial Relations Act, 2008?
(2) Whether the grievance application is maintainable being time barred?
(3) Whether the grievance notice was served to the respondent by the petitioner before filing of this grievance application per requisite of Industrial Relations Act, 2008?
(4) Whether service of the applicant was terminated by the respondent i,e, respondent No,1 illegally and without adopting due process of law?
(5) Whether the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
(6) Relief?
4. After framing issues, the petitioner produced three witnesses in support of his contention, whereas in rebuttal the respondent produced RW-1. On conclusion of trial and after hearing the parties, the learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, where after he filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Court, which was also dismissed, where after instant petition was filed.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the learned Courts below have erred in law and facts declaring that the grievance application was barred by time as the termination order is void against which no limitation run; that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and even no inquiry was conducted against him; that the ocular evidence supported by the documentary proof was fully ignored by the Courts below; that the impugned judgments of Courts below are suffering from misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent contended that the concurrent findings of Courts below are based upon proper appraisal of material available on record; that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of worker being lastly serving as Accounts Officer; that no grievance notice was sent to the respondent within time; that the termination of the petitioner was not without rhymes or reasons rather the same was explained in letters dated 17, October, 2007, 25th October, 2007 and 15th November, 2007.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. According to the petitioner he was inducted in service with the respondent on contract basis and subsequently he was declared as a permanent workman in the year 1985 with the initial name and style of Messrs Sandoz (Pvt.) Ltd. But the said name and style was changed subsequently as different name and style, presently it is known as NOVARTIS Pharma Pakistan Ltd. And Messrs Parazelsus Pakistan (Pvt.)
Ltd. Distributor and on 27th February, 2008 he was terminated from his service without any justifiable reasons.
8. Record reflects that the petitioner was terminated from his service on 7th February, 2008, hence the petitioner was legally bound to issue grievance notice to the respondent within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arose as provided under section 41 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008, but it appears that the petitioner approached the wrong forum by filing a Civil Suit No,47 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge-IV Quetta, but the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of the petitioner or his pleader/counsel on different dates of hearing, vide order dated 22nd August, 2008 and restoration application filed by the petitioner also met the same fate vide order dated 16th April, 2009. However, on appeal it was pointed out that the petitioner had approached the wrong forum and it was advised to him to approach the Labour Court. Hence, the petitioner under the provisions of section 41 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 ought to have issued grievance notice to the respondent, but this was not done so and instead of sending grievance notice to the respondent personally as provided in subsection
(2) of section 41 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008, a legal notice dated 27th June, 2009 was sent to the respondent through counsel, while subsection (2) of section 41 states that, "Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker". It appears that specifically the worker 'himself' was referred in the said section in bringing his grievance to the notice of the employer A and hence admittedly it has been established that no grievance notice was issued to the respondent at all and the legal notice so issued to the respondent cannot termed to be a grievance notice, therefore, the. Very application of the petitioner before the Labour Court was not maintainable and such fact was rightly appreciated by both the Courts below. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment reported as PLD 1961 Supreme Court page 57 wherein it was held, as follows, "While construing section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, it was held that the intention of the Legislature was obvious from its language that it regarded the appearance of legal practitioners in proceedings before the Industrial Courts as undesirable except in cases where all the parties consented to his appearance."
' The learned Judge, further distinguished the case of Daud Hosiery Mills v. Hazrat Muhammad Yousuf (sic) on the ground:--- "A beneficial interpretation can only be given where the language is not clear and two or more different interpretations can safely be given to it but here, in my opinion the word "himself" needs no other interpretation except "workman himself" or "through his two other agencies" as provided in the section to bring his grievance before the employer and not through an Advocate. Ignorance or illiteracy of the workman in the country is generally well known and it cannot be said that Legislature could remain ignorant of the fact. Hence, this fact, in my opinion, cannot be a valid ground to give a wider interpretation to the word "himself"."
9. Besides, the said question again came before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which has been decided and reported in PLD 1980 Supreme Court 80 wherein it was held, as under:--- "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 words "either" and "through" cannot be overlooked. The former refers to the alternatives while the latter means a 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 practitioner 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."
10. From the above cited judgments it has become crystal clear that no grievance notice was issued to the respondent by the petitioner, which otherwise was mandatory, therefore, the proceedings before the Labour Court were not maintainable and the forums below have rightly declined the relief claimed by the petitioner, as such, the orders/judgments of forums below are maintained as the same do not require any interference.
' For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.