' ABDULLAH BALOCH, MEMBER.--- This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30- 03-2015 passed by the 1st Labour Court Quetta whereby application under section 41 of Balochistan Industrial Relation Act, 2010 filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the appeal are that the appellants Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Sweeper in Grade
(1) in place of their predecessors as per rule, by the respondent No,1 vide Order No,9127, dated 27- 01-2014, and they were performing their duties in Halqa No,45, while the appellants Nos.3 to 5 were initially appointed as Sweeper on daily wages basis in Halqa No,45, and after three months they were appointed as Sweeper Grade (1) on permanent basis vide Order No,8895 dated 12-12-2013 by the respondent No,
1. Since then they are performing their A duties and no complaint was arises against them despite several attempts the respondents did not paid their salaries and ultimately the appellants filed grievance notice for payment of their salaries, but no heed was paid by the respondents. Thereafter filed grievance application under section 41 BIRA, 2010 before 1st Labour Court, Quetta which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30-0-2015.
3. The respondents contested the grievance petition by filing' rejoinder and raised legal objections and vehemently denied the claim of the appellant and submitted that the appellants were never been in the service of the respondents and they have managed to obtained fake appointment letters.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the Learned Trial Court framed as many as 5 issues, which are reproduced as under: i. Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of Preliminary Legal objections 'A' to 'C' raised by respondents in their Written Statement? ii. Whether the petitioners are employees of respondents Corporation? iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the outstanding salaries against the respondents? iv. Whether the petitioner are entitled for the relief claimed for? v. Relief?"
5. Thereafter the parties were directed by the Trial Court to adduce evidence, to prove its case the appellants produced five witnesses and on rebuttal the respondents produced three RW's. After appreciation of evidence the Learned Trial Court dismissed the petition of the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 30-03-2015.
6. Mr. Sabir Jan Advocate counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were duly appointed by the respondent No,1 vide Order No,8895 dated 12-12-2013 and Order No,9127 dated 27- 01-2014 and the same Orders were issued to the appellants after proper entries made in the dispatch registers of the respondents. He further contended that the appellants performed their duties in Halqa No,45 and in support of their performing duties, the appellants produced PW2 Mr. Mohammad Qadir Khan Achakzai, Councilor of the Halqa No,45 and he also issued a certificate, which was Art as P/1. The learned counsel further contended that the appellants approached the respondents for payment of their salaries time and again but no heed was paid and appellants filed grievance notice to the respondents on 05-03-2014 but no action was taken by the respondents on the application of the appellants and thereafter the appellants filed grievance petition before the Learned Trial Court. He further contended that in support of their claim the appellants produced sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence before the Learned Trial Court but Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence so produced by the appellants. He further contended that during the pendency of their petition before the Learned Trial Court the respondent No,1 lodged FIR No,244/14 dated 17-10-2014, in Police Station Civil Line Quetta, against the appellants for forgery, fraud, fake and fictitious documents, just to harass and blackmail the respondents by garb of said FIR which is after thought. He further contended that they have filed an application before Learned Trial Court for verification of signatures of the then respondent No,1, but the Trial Court dismissed the application of the appellants without due consideration vide Order dated 11-12-2014. He further stated that the impugned Order passed by the Learned trial Court is arbitrary, suffers from surmises, conjecture and against the norms of justice, liable to be set aside.
7. Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan Advocate learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the appellants were never been in the service of the respondents. The appointment letters are fake and fictitious, neither approved by the competent authority nor issued by the Office of the respondents. He further Contended that the appellants neither filed any application for their appointments before the respondents nor they have filed any grievance notice for payment of their salaries, even otherwise not mentioned a single word regarding grievance notice in their grievance petition before the Trial Court. He further contended that the authenticity of their appointment letters could not have been reflects from the official's record i.e, attendance register, master sheet, account branch and bank accounts. As such their claim is false, frivolous, concocted and fictitious and accordingly the respondents lodged FIR against the appellants for forgery and making fake documents and the Learned Trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence had rightly dismissed their petition.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
9. The record reflects that Office Order No, 8895 dated 12-12-2013 and Office Order No,9127 dated 27-01-2014, respectively issued with the signatures of the then administrator to ascertain the issuance and authenticity of the aforesaid Office Orders, the dispatch and diary registers of the respondents called by this Tribunal from the Police Station Civil Line Quetta which was lying with them for investigation of FIR No,244/14 dated 17-10-2014. Both aforesaid Office Orders clearly entered in sequence of serial numbers in the dispatch register with the same subject matter and with the names of the appellants and the same fact was supported by the PW.5 Bashir Ahmed Assistant of Metropolitan Corporation Quetta and Incharge of dispatch register in his examination in chief. He duly acknowledged the issuance of same letters from the dispatch register in his statement before Trial Court and no question of denial. Was put to the witness by the respondents or otherwise. The entries pertaining to Office Orders in question, the original dispatch register was shown to the counsel for the respondents to confront or otherwise, he does not denied the entries appeared in the register and in serial numbers mentioned in sequence in register, however stated that the same was managed by the appellants.
10. While confronted the counsel for the appellants whether the original appointment letters were produced before the Trial Court were taken on record by the Trial Court would be available to be produced before this Court. The learned counsel produced original appointment letters which were found correct according to available copies on record of grievance application before the Trial Court which were taken as Article P/2 and Article P/3. The original appointment letters were shown to the counsel for the respondents which he denied to have been issued by the respondents rather treated the same as fake one.
11. Keeping in view the above discussion the main dispute between the parties is genuineness of the Office Order No, 8895 dated 12-122013 and Office Order No,9127 dated 27-01-2014, which could only be resolved either through proper inquiry from the officers/officials concerned of the Metropolitan Corporation Quetta or by verification of signatures of the signing authority through hand writing expert and Trial Court was failed to exercise its jurisdiction for both the methods to be adopted and to reach to the root cause of the matter. It also apply to the prudent mind that such like forgery in official record could not be carried out by the outsiders, even otherwise a layman without connivance and furtherance of the officials can do such forgery, because the official letter heads of the administrator and official dispatch register are in the safe custody of the concerned officers/officials. If even otherwise a single irrelevant entry could have been made in the dispatch register for twice in different dates could have been ascertained and pointed out timely by the incharge.
12. Prima facie its appeared that original official letter head of the administrator issued and entries so made in the dispatch register are result of some considerations of omission or commission at the part of officers/officials of the respondents. It is also appeared that on disclosure of the fact the management/respondents lodged FIR of forgery against the appellants which seems to be afterthought just to save their skin and to harass and blackmail the appellants. Keeping in view the above facts, I have reached to the conclusion that the impugned judgment dated 30-03-2015 passed by the 1st Labour Court Quetta is suffering from material, illegalities and irregularities and not sustainable is hereby set aside and the appeal is partly allowed and the case is remanded to the authority i.e, Metropolitan Corporation Quetta with the directions, that the grievance notice filed by the appellants to the respondent No,1 is deemed to be pending before the authority, to decide the same after providing full opportunity to the appellants and conduct thorough inquiry from the officers and officials concerned, fix responsibility if someone found guilty and thereafter decide the grievance notice in accordance with law positively within a period of one month from the date of 'receipt of this judgment.
13. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
14. The copy of order along with original record of Trial Court be sent to Trial Court. Case after completion be consigned to record.
15. The copy of order be sent to the Chief Metropolitan Officer of the Metropolitan Corporation Office, Quetta for compliance.
16. GIVEN under my hand and seal of the Court on 5th June, 2015.