This is grievance petition under Section 33 of the IRA 2012 R/W S.O. 12(3) of the Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 has been filed by the petitioner . Contention of the petitioner is that petitioner is a permanent worker of the bank having several branches throughout Pakistan. That provision of all labour laws including the Industrial & Commercial Employment Standing (Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are fully attracted on the respondent's bank. That the petitioner was employed in the respondent's bank since 22.09.21975 and served as an Assistant in clerical cadre and lastly he was posted at Bombay Bazaar Branch at Karachi and performed his duties with full zeal and devotion without any complaint. That petitioner is one of the law-abiding citizen belongs to worker class and believing on the right of association and formation of trade union guaranteed under the constitution of Pakistan. That petitioner remained General Secretary of the United Bank Labour Union of Sindh being its principal office bearer of the union and petitioner along with others formed a new trade union under the name and style of United Bank Labour Union of Pakistan and was elected as General Secretary and this information was given to the responden t's management on 25.08.201 1 and on receiving of the notice bank management started heinous tactics by advancing severe threats, harassment and intimidation for transfer and victimization on the ground of formation of new trade union which is clear acts of unfair labour practice; resultantly petitioner approached to this Commission by filing a petition Bearing No. 4A(282)/201 1-K along with application for grant of interim stay on 08.09.201 1 and the Honorable Commission passed an interim order restraining the management from victimizing, harassing, transferring or taken any adverse action towards the employment of the petitioner but surprisingly on 09.09.201 1 when the petitioner went for duty he was not allowed to sign the attendance register , petitioner showed the interim prohibitory order passed by the Commission but it was not considered and some derogatory remarks were passed. Petitioner also informed the establishment through written application but was transferred to Quetta. Petitioner filed a complaint Bearing No, 7(68)/201 1-K before this Commission on 13.09.201 1 wherein further directions were passed to the respon dent's management were again communicated to the concerned responsible officials of the respondent's bank but they did not considered it also.
That petitioner also filed a criminal complaint wherein prohibitory order was passe d and on 08.10.201 1 petitioner was issued a charge sheet by the Regional Office with wild and bald allegations which was duly replied but since the management was bent upon to victimize the petitioner , establishment constituted a domestic inquiry wherein petitioner filed reply . Contention of the petitioner is that petitioner was mala fidely treated as employee Regional Headquarter Quetta. That petitioner also challenged the order of his relieving from Karachi to Quetta while filing a separate case Bearing No. 4A(338)/201 1-K and 4A(339)/201 1-K at Islamabad wherein prohibitory order was passed in favour of the petitioner and same was brought into notice of the bank timely . That on basis of the contention of the establishment no case of misconduct was made out and petitioner was only targeted and victimized due to his trade union activities and the petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood by the respondent.
Requests that impugned order of termina tion dated 03.08.2012 may be set aside and declare the same illegal and unlawful and reinstate the petitioner along with back benefits.
2. The respondent entered appearance and filed preliminary legal objections along with reply statement and contended that proper and valid grievance notice is prerequisite for filing of grievance petition which has not been validly served. That no violation of any award or settlement has been claimed. On merits the contentions of the petitioner were vehemently denied and controverted.
3. Arguments heard record perused.
4. The establishment while appearing before the Commission raised preliminary legal objection that no valid and proper grievance notice was served by the petitioner on the respondent and it was served on the President which is designation and not a legal entity and President was neither appointing authority nor appellant authority of the petitioner . Termination letter dated 03.08.2012 is signed by Ghulam Nabi Abrejo Manager-Leave & DA, Yameen Ahmed Farooqui Unit Head Ops. But the petitioner served the grievance notice to the President. In case titled Khushal Khan vs. MCB & others reported in 2007 PLC (C.S) 907 Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the grievance notice served on the President of Bank was not inconformity to law as such the legal objection raised by the respondent is an admission of the petitioner to serve the same to the President is in violation of the law as held in the judgment by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan is fatal to the case of petitioner it cannot be proceed.
5. On divergent pleadings of the parties, parties were directed to produce their respective evidence.
6. Petitioner himself appeared as PW who was cross-examined, on the other hand from respondent's side Naz-e- Rasool R W entered appearance.
7. Perusal of evidence recorded shows that petitioner while appearing before the court did not got exhibited his affidavit in evidence or any other documents and was cross-examined, under regulation 45 of the NIRC (P&F)
Regulations 2016; CPC is applicable in the proceedings for adjudication and determmation of industrial disputes including under Section 33 and Section 54 of IRA 2012 under the law the document not brought on record through witness and duly exhibited cannot be taken into consideration by the Commission unless those documents are proved according to the law and the rule empowers the court to reject any document considered irrelevant or inadmissible at any stage recording grounds of such rejection. Documents neithe r formally tendered in evidence nor exhibited cannot be considered in evidence nor can be used against opposite party unless brought on file in accordance with law and the same cannot be look into. Under the rule judge has to make endorsement with his own hand which is mandatory requireme nt by the presiding officer to endorse with his own hand a statement that the document have been admitted in evidence as provided under order XIII & XVIII Rule 4 CPC and the document not so admitted cannot be regarded as evidence as such act to be done in one way must be done at that way, this is an illegality , which vitiated the entire proceedings; petitioner neither brought on record in his examination in chief affidavit in evidence nor grievance notice or postal receipt or receiving of the grievance notice as such same cannot be look into.
8. Petitioner during cross-examination admitted that I have preferred an appeal against the order of RITU before Full Bench as well as before Honorable Lahore Court and I have perhaps not mentioned about the pendency of appeal against the order of RITU in present petition as well as in my affidavit in evidence and that appeal Bearing No. 12(07)/2012-L filed at Lahore Bench was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.01.2013 and I have not filed any restoration application against that order and that in case No. 4A(282)/201 1-K filed by me before this Bench of Commission interim stay order granted in respect of my transfer was recalled vide order dated 06.10.201 1 and that subsequently I had filed another case Bearing No. 4A(339)/201 1-K in respect of charge sheet and final action etc. which was also dism issed and I have not filed any appeal because my termination order was issued. Petitioner admits that he participated in the inquiry proceedings and signed the each and every page of inquiry proceedings and that case Baring No. 4A(282)/201 1-K was dismissed vide order dated 06.10.201 1-K.
9. On the other hand respondent produced evidence and witness Naz-e-Rasool and got exhibited his affidavit in evidence but no other document was got exhibited by him neither any document on behalf of respondent except affidavit in evidence has been got exhibited nor properly endorsed as such both the sides have half-heartedly contested the matter for the reason best known to the parties. Charge against the petitioner is of misconduct which was proved on basis of inquiry report on basis of which impugned order of termina tion dated 03.08.2012 has been passed. The petitioner participated in inquiry proceedings and cross-examined the witnesses even on the request of the petitioner another inquiry of ficer namely Mukhtar Ahmed Rind was appointed as an inquiry of ficer.
10. The petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of allegation that he remained absent from the duty without sanctioned leave and his absence without permission for more than 10 days amounts to misconduct. The petitioner during cross-examination failed to bring on record any infirmity or irregularity in the respondent evidence or in inquiry proceedings who had already reach the age of superannuation in 2015. Petitioner also failed to bring on record any proof of his none gainful employment. Contention of the petitioner that he was not provided copy of inquiry report while on the other hand admits that he participated in the inquiry proceedings and cross-examined the witnesses. There is no provision of law to provide the copy of the inquiry report mandatory as held in 1988 SCMR 1352 PLD 1981 SC 225 .
11. What has been discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that petitioner has failed to make-out prove his case and have also failed to bring on record any illegality in the termination order dated 03.08.2012 hence this petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after its due completion.