' The appellant, who was employed as a Winder in the respondent Mills at Hyderabad, was dismissed from service by order, dated 30th September, 1980. The dismissal orders are based on the report of the enquiry officer, Sirajuddin, who was appointed to hold enquiries into the charges of misconduct against the appellant. These charges were that he had assaulted, beaten and abused Mr. Israr the Spinning Master in the Mills. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Labour Court through a grievance petition filed on 24th December, 1980. The learned VIth Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition holding that the dismissal orders are valid and proper and are passed in consequence of a domestic enquiry in which the misconduct alleged against the appellant was duly established. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have beard Mr. All Amjad, Advocate, for the appellant and I am of the view that there is a stronger ground on which the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable and hence this appeal merits dismissal. It has been admitted by the appellant in his evidence before the learned Labour Court that he had served the requisite grievance notice upon the employer through an Advocate.. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. (1), that a grievance notice served by an Advocate on behalf of his client is not in conformity with the requirements of subsection (I) of section 25-A, I. R. O., and that the grievance petition founded upon such notice is not maintainable. Relying on the above authority, I would dismiss this appeal' in limine. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PL D 1980 SC 80