This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 24th August, 1982, rejecting the grievance petition of the appellant workman wherein he had prayed for award to him of his emoluments from 20th April, 1981 to .30th April, 1.981, and also for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service and allow him to perform his duties.
2. The appellant was employed as a Store Keeper in the respondent organization with effect from 4th January, 1981.. According to him he felt pain in his teeth and hence with the permission of his superior he saw a Doctor who advised him to 'consult a Dental Surgeon to the t.. M. C. H., Hyderabad, whereupon he went to Kotri and got treatment, to the Government Hospital, Kotri, from 20th April, 1981 to 5th May: 1981, when he was declared fit to resume duties. According to the .Appellant he reported for duty on 6th May, 1981, alongwith the Fitness Certificate from the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kotri, bull his pay from 20th April, 1981 to 30th April, 1981, was held up until further orders and further he was not allowed to resume his duties. He accordingly preferred a grievance petition requesting for a -direction to the respondent organization to pay him his wages for the period from 20th April, 1981 to 30th April, 1981, and -also to allow him to resume his duties.
The respondents resisted the appellant's grievance petition on the grounds, firstly, that the appellant's services were duly terminated under the order of the competent authority, after a show.
Cause notice, as he persistently refused to obey the orders relating to his duties and further by reason of the fact that the persistently defied the orders and misbehaved with his officers; and secondly, that the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable as the Standing Orders are not applicable to the respondent .Organization, which is being run under the control of the Government of Sind. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on 2 grounds, firstly, that the Standing Orders are not applicable to the respondent organization and its employees, and secondly, that the grievance notice and the grievance petition are belated.
3. I have heard Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Hassan Ahmad Shah, Advocate, who repre--sented the respondent organization. It was urged by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that though admittedly the respondent organization has been set up by the Government of Sind as a Statutory Corporation under the Sind Seed Corporation Act, 1976, and it has statutory Rules/Regu--lations for its employees known as the Sind Seed Corporation Service Regulations, which were approved by the Board of Governors of Sind Seed Corporation on 31st May, 1979, the corporation is carrying on its business under its own author-14y headed by a Board of Governors and -is not run by or under the authority of the Government. In support of his contentions that they respondent organization is not exempted from the operation of the previsions of the Standing Orders he -relied upon the decisions reported as Saeed Ahmad Jan v. Punjab Agri--cultural Development and Supplies Corporation, Lahore (1976 PLC 436) and I. C. P. Employees Front, Karachi v. Presiding Officer, Vth Sind Labour Court (1977 PLC 154). The set up of the Agricultural Development & Supplies Corporation, which was established under the Punjab .Agricultural Development & Supplies Corporation Act, 1973, as well as pf the I. C. P. Are wholly different from that of the Sind Seed Corporation. The, last named corporation has been established by the Sind. Seed Corporation Act, 1976. It consists of such number of official and non-official members as Government may appoint. One of the members of the Corporation nominated by the Government is the Chairman of the Corporation while the Managing Director of the Corporation is- to be the Secretary of the Corporation. The official members are to hold office by virtue of their ex officio position while the non-official members are to hold office for a period of 3 years. It will be seen that the Corporation is wholly controlled by the Government as all the members of the Corporation, whether officials or non-officials, are appointed. By the Government. Furthermore, the remuneration fees, allowance and privi--leges of non-official members or to be determined by the Government. The official members even otherwise are governed by the Rules framed by the Government. Even in the matter of business .Conducted by the corporation, the Government has overriding power, and. Not only the Government may require the corporation to- furnish it any document, return, statement, estimate, or any other information regarding any matter under the control of the corporation, but further Government may from time to time give such directions as it considers necessary for the guidance of the corporation. Moreover, although the corporation is to have a separate fund known as the Sind Seed Corporation Fund, the main sources of the fund are the subsidies received from the Govern--ment, the other components of the fund being the loans raised or monies obtained from the corporation's sale proceeds, fees, commissions and other charges for service, donations and other sums receivable by the corporation. The Government maintains control over the finances of the corporation as subsection (4) of section 18 of the Act provides that the statement of the audited accounts of the Corporation shall be furnished to the Government within 4 months after the end of the financial year. In view of all these provisions, I am of opinion that the respondent corporation is being run under the authority of the Government of Sind.
4. There is another ground on which the grievance petition of the appellant must fail. The services of the appellant were admittedly terminated by the order, dated 12th May, 1981, which appears at page 83 of the record of the learned Labour Court . This order is based on the report of the Plant Manager, dated 15th April, 1981. There is an endorsement on this complaint by the Administrative Officer of the Corporation requesting the Managing Director to terminate the services of the appellant and suggesting that the action was important in the interest of the Sind Seed Corporation. The Managing Director has signified his approval to this suggestion by initialing the same on 20th April, 1981. However, the formal orders for termination of service of the appellant were issued on 12th May, 1981. It was contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi that these orders were never communicated to or served upon the appellant. Mr. Hassan Ahmad Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent corporation, however, bas referred me to 2 pieces of evidence in support of his contention that these orders were served on the appellant on the very day when they were issued. The first piece of evidence in this behalf is the testimony of Roshan Ali, who was at the relevant time Despatch Clerk in the Head Office of the respondent organization. He: has testified that he personally served the order of termination of services upon the appellant on 12th May; 1981, and had obtained his signature/in--tials on the Outward Register in acknowledgement of the receipt of the termination orders. The witness produced a photostat copy of the Outward Register in support of his testimony. Mr. Hassan Ahmad Shah also produced before me the original Outward Register Containing the relevant entries and the initials said to be of the appellant.. Witness Roshan Ali was more or less a colleague of the appellant and had no reason to give false testimony against the appellant. At least nothing was brought out in his. Cross-examination or alleged against him from which it could be inferred that: his evidence was not trustworthy or that he had any illwill or enmity with the appellant. In addition to the direct evidences of Roshan Ali, there is also evidence of another witness indicating that the appellant was communicated the orders of his termination of services. This witness is Mr. Ghulam Abbas Soomro, who was at the relevant time the Secretary of the Sind Seed Corpo--ration. He has testified that on or about 7th May, 1981, the appellant had come to see him and at that time the witness had informed him that his services were terminated by the Managing Director and hence he could not be allowed to join his duties. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi sought to argue that inasmuch as the orders terminating the services of the appellant were issued on 12th May, 1981, the witness could not have informed the appellant. On 7th May, 19.81, that his services were terminated. The argument of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi overlooks the fact that the termination order, dated 12th May, 1981 is a formal order of termination of services and is `based upon the approval of the Managing Director dated 20th April, 1981, to the proposal for the termination of services of the appellant. Since Mr. Ghulam Abbas Soomro was the Secretary of the respondent Corporation at the relevant time, be is expected to have known the orders of the Managing Director, dated 20th April, 1981. He was thus in a- position to know -on 7th May, 1981, when the appellant came to see him, that the Managing Director had approved the proposal for termination of services of the appellant. There is thus tangible evidence to indicate that on 7th May, 1981, Mr. Ghulam Abbas Soomro informed the appellant about the termination of his services and on 12th May, 1981, clerk Roshan Ali delivered to.
The appellant a copy of the termination orders and obtained his initials n the Outward Register in token of the delivery of the said orders. It is true that the appellant has denied that the initials on the entry in the Outward Register are his, but in view of the evidence of Mr. Roshan Ali and the further evidence of Mr. Ghulam Abbas Soomro, t cannot place reliance on his denial and am satisfied that the orders of termination of services-were duly communicated to him.
5. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi also made grievance of the fact that his request for reference of the entry in the Outward Register bearing the initials of the appellant was not referred, ,for the --comparison of the Handwriting Expert - but I am of the view that the learned Labour Court has rightly refused to refer .It to the Handwriting Expert, since comparison of initials is difficult and no certain opinion can be given in this behalf.
6. Since the appellant was served with the orders of termination of services on 12th May, 1981, he should have served the requisite grievance notice on the respondent corporation by 12th August, 1981. However, the grievance , notice was given by the appellant on 12th November, 1981. The grievance notice was thus hopelessly time barred.
7. On both the above grounds, therefore, the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable. I would accordingly concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal.