DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Vth Labour Court , given on 30th November, 1982, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman against the termination of his services on the twin grounds that neither the grievance notice was served on the employer nor has the grievance petition been filed against the employer.
2. The facts of this case, shortly stated, are that the appellant, who was employed in the respondent organization as skilled worker---Grade 11, was served with a charge-sheet, dated 29th October, 1981, alleging that on 28th October, 1981 he had committed theft of three Copper Bus-Bar pieces being the property of the respondent-Company which were found from the tool-box of his motor- cycle. The appellant was suspended on the aforesaid charge and a domestic enquiry was held against him. The Enquiry Officer gave the finding that the charge of theft bad been established against the appellant. The Managing Director of the respondent agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and directed his dismissal from service. Accordingly the appellant was dis--missed from service vide order, dated 5th December, 1981, which was issued under the signature of Mr. S. A.
Gul; Administrative Officer. Incidently the same officer had signed the charge-sheet and the sus-- pension order of the appellant and also was the Enquiry Officer against .Him. The appellant, after serving a grievance notice upon the Ad--ministrative Officer, S. A. Gul, preferred a grievance petition before the learned Vth Labour Court . In, the grievance petition the Adminis--trative Officer of the respondent-Company was shown as the respondent. As already indicated the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant on the grounds, firstly, that the grievance notice was not proper in that it was served upon the Ad--ministrative Officer, S. A. Gul, and not upon the employer of the appellant, and secondly, that the grievance petition should have been filed against the Textile Winding Machinery Company Limited or at least the Managing Director of the Company, who was the employer, and not against Mr. S. A. Gul, the Administrative Officer.
3. I have heard Mr. M. L. Shahani, who appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, who represented the respondent. Since it was claimed by Mr. M. L. Shahani that the appellant genuinely was of the view that the Administrative Officer, S. A. Gul, was the employer as he had signed the dismissal orders, and further as it was claimed by Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed that the Administrative Officer, S. A. Gul, had acted under the directions and authority of the Managing Director, I considered it necessary to examine the Administrative Officer S. A. Gul. He has admitted that not only he had signed the charge---sheet and the suspension order of the appellant but had also acted as the Enquiry Officer against the appellant and signed the orders of his dismissal. However, he explained that all these actions had been taken by him under the authority and direction of the Managing Director. In support of his evidence he produced three documents. The first is the note, dated 29th October, 1981, bringing to the notice of the Managing Director that theft of three Copper Bus-Bar pieces had taken place and the same had been recovered from the motor-cycle belonging to the appellant. On this note the Managing Director has directed that a show-cause notice be issued to the appellant. It was in pursuance of this direction that the appellant was charge---sheeted. The second document produced by the witness is a note with which the reply of the appellant to the charge-sheet was submitted to the Managing Director for his orders. On this note the Managing Director has directed that he - had gone through the papers and an enquiry has to be conducted. He nominated Mr. S. A. Gul as the Enquiry Officer. The third document produced by the witness -is his report as Enquiry Officer. On his findings the Managing Director has endorsed that he agreed with the said findings and directed that the appellant be dismissed from service. It was in pursurance of this direction that the dismissal orders were issued by the Administrative Officer, S. A. Gul. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence of the witness that every action taken by the Administrative Officer, including charge-sheeting the appellant, holding the Enquiry against him, suspend--ing him and signing the orders of his dismissal, was taken in pur-- suance of the directions of the Managing Director. Since all actions were taken upon the directions of the Managing Director, who 'is the emp--loyer of the appellant, no infirmity or legal defect seems to have been committed in issuing or the signing of the orders No doubt, it would have been better if any another Enquiry Officer had been appointed instead of the Administrative Officer, S. A. Gul, but since he had no personal knowledge of the matter and furthermore no objection appears A to have been raised by the appellant to his appointment, as the Enquiry Officer, I find no legal defect, in the circumstances of the case, in the appointment of the Administrative Officer as Enquiry Officer.
4. I will now proceed to deal with the twin grounds on which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. As already indicated, the first ground is that the grievance notice is not served upon the employer. The grievance notice is at page 31 of the record of the learned Labour. Court. It is addressed to S. A. Gul, Administrative Officer of the Textile Winding Machinery Company Limited. It appears that since the dismissal order was signed by this Officer therefore, the appellant was led to believe that he was the proper Officer on whom the grievance notice was to -be served. Apart from this fact it has been admitted by Mr. S. A. Gul that - the grievance notice was referred to the Managing Director and he was suggested the reply to be made to the appellant. It is, thus, clear that despite the fact that the grievance notice was addressed to the Administrative Officer it reached and was served upon the Managing Director and the notice was replied on behalf of the Managing Director.
5. As regards the grievance petition, though this again has been filed against the Administrative Officer, Textile Winding Machinery Company Limited, it was similarly on account of the fact that the dismissal order and the reply to the grievance notice were signed by the Administrative Officer, S. A.
Gul. Furthermore it has been admitted by the Administrative Officer in his evidence before this Tribunal that the grievance petition is being defended under the orders of the Managing Director. It is, therefore, clear that though the Administrative Officer was wrongly shown as respondent in the grievance petition actually the Managing Director is the party who is defending the grievance petition and directing the defence.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of the view that neither of the two grounds upon which the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant are valid or proper. I would accordingly set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and remand the case to it for a decision on merits, since the learned Labour Court has decided the grievance petition on technical grounds and not on merits of the case. In order to avoid further confusion on the issue C whether the grievance petition has been filed against a correct party the appellant should be given an opportunity by the learned Labour Court of amending the title of the grievance petition by showing the Textile Winding Machinery Company Limited or its Managing Director as the respondent. The evidence of Mr. S. A. Gul, Administrative Officer, recorded by this Tribunal and its Annexures in original be sent to the learned Labour Court