DECISION ' The appellants, Zafar Iqbal and Akbar Khan who were employed in the Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd., the respondents herein, were dismissed from service in view of the orders passed by the learned Second Labour Court on 18th June, 1979, ordering dismissal of all workers in the respondent establishment who had taken part in the strike in the said establishment. It may be stated here that a strike had commenced in the aforesaid establishment from 2nd June, 1979, which was declared by the learned Labour Court to be illegal, and it was on that basis that the learned Labour Court had directed the dismissal of the striking workers. It is the case of the respondent establishment that both the appellants had taken part in the illegal strike and that further the appellant, Akbar Khan, who was an office-bearer of the C.B.A. In the respondent establishment, had taken a leading part in the said illegal strike. On the other hand, the case of the appellants is that they had not taken part in the strike and in fact had worked in the respondent establishment till 9th June, 1979, when a de facto lock-out was effected in the respondent establishment. It is further their case that the respondent establishment had asked them to sign some typed forms but when they found that they were not being allowed to work in the respondent establishment, they filed grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court after serving the necessary grievance notices upon the respondent establishment.
2. The learned Labour Court heard the petitions of the two appellant's alongwith the petition of one Sher Ali. It dismissed the applications of both the appellants on the grounds, firstly, that the grievance notice was served upon the respondent establishment beyond the period of limitation, and secondly that there is evidence to show that both the appellants had taken part in the strike. I have gone through the record and I find that both the grounds on which the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petitions of the two appellants are sound and there is tangible evidence in support thereof.
3. As already stated, the order of the learned Labour Court, directing the dismissal of the striking workers, is dated 18th June, 1979. It is admitted by both the appellants that they did not attend to their duties on and from 9th June, 1979. Even if the plea of the appellants is accepted, which is denied by the respondent establishment, that lock out was declared in the respondent establishment, the appellants should have attended to their duties and must have been aware after the passing of the orders of the learned Labour Court, dated 18th June, 1979 that unless they were striking workers they had to attend to their duties. The appellants, thus, had to serve the grievance notice upon the respondent establishment within three months of the date of the order of the learned Labour Court. However, the grievance notices by the appellants were sent to the respondent establishment on 1st October, 1979, much beyond the period of limitation. It is the case of the appellants that as the Pakistan Trade Unions Federation had entered into negotiations, with the respondent establishment and in consequence of the said negotiation most of the workers were taken on duty by the respondent establishment from time to time till 28th August, 1978, their cause of action accrued on the said date. I find no substance in this contention. Even if it be accepted that the respondent establishment took back some of the workers from 18th June, 1979 upto 28th August, 1979, it cannot be said that the cause of action to the appellants accrued on 28th August, 1979. The cause of action accrued to the appellants when they were not allowed to perform their duties and were considered as striking workers. It may be mentioned that both the appellants had submitted application to the respondent establishment admitting the fact that they were striking workers. As such, they come within the ambit of the order of the Second Labour Court directing the dismissal of the striking workers.
4. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative of the appellants, submitted that the appellants, who are illiterate, had been made to sign typed forms without being informed of the contents of those forms. The mere fact that the appellants are illiterate does not give rise to the inference that they had signed the applications in question without knowing their contents. It was for them to establish the plea that they had signed the applications without knowing what their contents were. This they have failed to do. In the said applications, the appellants categorically admitted that they had taken part in the illegal strike and they had been dismissed from service on that account. In view of these applications, which admittedly were made by the appellants and bear their thumb impressions the plea of the appellants that they did not take part in the strike has no substance. It may also be mentioned that appellant Akbar Khan was an office-bearer of the C.B.A. And since the strike had been engineered by the C.B.A. He cannot be said to be unaware of the strike. There is no evidence on record to indicate that he had disassociated himself from the strike. So far as Zafar Iqbal is concerned, there is the sworn testimony of Mehmood Hassan Siddiqui (Deputy Manager, Welfare in the respondent establishment) that he (Zafar Iqbal) alongwith others had gone to the officer's canteen and got the same closed by force and intimidation.
5. For the reasons stated by me above I find no force in the appeals of the two appellants and, accordingly, dismiss them.