This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned IVth Labour Court given on 8th July, 1982 dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman, challenging dismissal from service on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish that he had sent the 'requisite grievance notice to the respondent company.
2. It is contended by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had served 2 grievance notices upon the respondent company, one personally on 19th August, 1981 and the other by registered post on 6th October, 1981. So far as the first grievance notice is concerned, the appellant failed to establish that-' it was actually served upon the respondent company and even Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, did not press the contention that this notice was served upon the management He, however. Strongly contended that the notice through registered post sent on 6th October, 1981 was served or at least should be deemed have been duly serves[: upon the management. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon Registration Receipt No. 46 Now, in the first place, the said registration receipt merely shows that a registered letter, addressed to the Manager (Administration) of the respondent company was received in the Malir Bazar Post Office on 6th October, 1981 but there is nothing in the postal receipt to indicate by whom the registered letter was sent. In the second place, as pointed out by the learned Labour Court , the appellant himself in his evidence before the learned Labour Court admitted that he had no evidence to show that a registered letter was sent by him to the respondent company containing his grievance notice. In his evidence before the learned Labour Court he made no mention of the postal receipt which was subsequently produced. There is however, one more circumstance which completely demolishes the case of the appellant. As already ,pointed out the appellant has relied upon postal receipt No. 46, dated 6th October, 1981 issued by Malir Bazar Post Office. The respondent company has produced the registered cover in respect of that receipt. It shows that it has been sent by one Khalil Khan, who has no concern with the appellant. The authenticity of this cover cannot he doubted as it not only bears on a different place the stamp of the Malir Bazar Post Office, as also the date 6th October, 1981 but also the registration receipt No. 46. The respondent company has also produced the document which was received in this registered cover. It is a Medical Certificate issued in respect of Khalil Khan who had sent the registered cover. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi that the respondent company has forged or at least substituted the registered cover. I find no force in this contention as the cover produced by the respondent company bears on 2 places the seal of the Malir Bazar Post Office as also the registration No. 46, and the date 6th October, 1981
3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of opinion that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the appellant had failed) to establish that he had served the required grievance notice on the respondent company. I would accordingly dismiss the appeal ink limine.