This appeal arises from the decision dated 2-7-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab - Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant against his termination was dismissed.
2. The appellant was initially appointed as Junior Quantity Supervisor on 1-11-1974 and was promoted as Quantity Supervisor vide appointment order Exh. P-5 dated 25-7-1976 in Grade No. 6 (junior). His services were terminated vide termination notice Exh. P-9 dated 16-2-1980 on the ground that the project in which he was working had been transferred to some other body.
According to the respondent, the appellant was working in K.N.C. Company. The case of the appellant is that his juniors were retained. The grievance petition brought by the appellant was opposed by the respondent and it was contended that no grievance notice had been received.
Although the assertion of the appellant from the .Very beginning . Was that before bringing the grievance petition, a grievance notice had been served, yet the appellant came forward with the plea that during the pendency of the grievance petition, another grievance notice was given on 12- 4-1980. Even the second grievance notice has not been brought on the record. To show that his juniors were -retained, the appellant produced seniority list Exh. P-10, which, according to the respondent, is not a genuine document. The appointment letters of three other persons namely, Malik' Brat Khan dated 13-7-1978, Younus Ali Asi dated 11-11-1976 and Mazhar Zia dated 16-11-1976 are on the file but not tendered in evidence. This is not known which party brought these documents on the record.
3. So far as the service of grievance notice as concerned, the lower Court found that Exh. P-1 was not a genuine receipt. P.W.1 admitted his signatures on the receipt but added that the appellant had asked him to deliver an application to the appellant for some better post and that he on a blank paper had put his signatures and axing his seal had delivered it to the appellant, The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no literate person would sign a blank paper. He has also said that if the appel--lant had any influence, first of all he would have got himself re-instated in-- stead of getting better employment for P.W.1 and that P.W.1 could have rea--lised that the appellant himself being a terminated person could not get for him a better post. The circumstances in which R.W.1 signed Exh. P-1 may be different, but it does not appear that he was knowing at the time he put the signatures that he was giving a receipt of a grievance notice. He categori--cally refused to have received the typed paper Exh. P-1. He admitted that the seal affixed under his signatures is a genuine stamp of N. C. C. But added that it was not the stamp of the despatcher. He also said that the date of 20-2-1980 was not in his handwriting. In cross- examination he further made it clear that somewhere in August, 1980 his signatures had been received at marked `A'. A comparison of the word `received' with the 'signatures of P.W. 1 clearly shows that it is not in the handwriting of P.W.
1. The ink and the handwriting both differ. The word `received' and the date '20-2-1980' are written with the same ink but the signatures are in different ink. The signatures show that P.W. 1 writes spaciously in long letters but the letters of the word `received' are very small. The appellant stated nothing about the second grievance notice and only in cross-examination a question was put to him on behalf of the respondent and he admitted that during the pendency of the grievance petition he had given the grievance notice. So far as the first notice is concerned, the learned lower Court has rightly found that the appellant failed to prove its service. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that if it is held that before giving the grievance petition, no grievance notice was given since after bringing the grievance petition, a grievance notice was served within three months of the order of termination the requirement of law stood fulfilled I cannot agree with him. The requirement of law is that a grievance notice be given before bringing the grievance petition and not after that. When law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner and not otherwise. If a grievance notice is given before bringing the grievance petition, but before the expiry of the 15 days meant for. The reply of the employer the grievance petition is brought, it may be said that the grievance petition is competent, but it is necessary that a grievance notice be served before bringing the grievance petition. The right course for the appellant was to bring fresh grievance petition after the expiry of 15 days from the service of grievance notice and to withdraw the previous grievance petition. Since after the service of grievance notice during the pendency of the grievance petition no fresh grievance petition was brought, the previous one was not maintainable. The grievance notice during the pendency of the grievance petition must have been given after con--sultation with the counsel, it cannot therefore be said that the appellant was unaware of the legal nicety mentioned above.
4. So far as the termination of services is concerned, firstly it has not been shown that the project for which the appellant was employed had not been completed or had been transferred to some other body. In the termination notice it is not mentioned that the project had been transferred to some other body but the ground given is that due to discontinuity of the, work and the winding up of the process of the . Process of the project, the services of the appellant are no longer required.
The termination notice is dated 16-2-1980 and on 1-7-1979 the Executive Director Engineering had directed the Industrial Relations Officer to start demobilization of the project equipment and the staff gradually as the project was near completion. On the said direction. Of the Executive Director the Industrial Relations Officer had issued letter dated 31-7-1979, copy of which is Exh. D-3. Another letter dated 13-2-1980 sent by the Project Manager, K.N.C. II, copy of which is Exh. D-4, shows that the project had been completed on 31-12-1979. On the contrary no document has been brought on the record by the appellant to show that the work had not been completed and that it was continuing. Malik Bhy Khan, Younas Ali Asi and Mazhar Zia were not employed as Quantity Supervisor in Junior Grade No. 6 in which the appellant was serving. But they were employed as Supervisor Senior Grade No. 7 in K. N. C. I and not in K. N. C. 11, therefore, their employment had no relevancy with the case of the appellant and it cannot be said that since the work was available, therefore, the appellant was wrongly terminated. They were employed in different project KNC-l whereas the appellant was serving in the project KNC-11. The seniority list Exh. P-10 is not an authenticated copy of the seniority list maintained by the respondent. No doubt the respondent did not bring any seniority list on the record, but it was not necessary according to its case. As just mentioned above, the persons, who, according to the appellant, were retained in service were employed in a different project and, therefore, their employment had no relevancy with the present case.
5. As a result of the observations made above, I hold that the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.