1. ' This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 17th June, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 3, Ferozewala at Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement was dismissed, ' The facts are that the appellant was Costing clerk in the respondent Mills Office. His services were terminated on 3rd August, 1980 for the reason that they were no more required. The order of termination is P. A. The appellant challenged the said order in his grievance petition. The pleas on which the order of termination was challenged were that no ground for termination was given in the order of the termination, and post of the appellant was not abolished as an other man was appointed against it.
2. ' On behalf of the respondents it was contended that no one was appointed on the post left by the appellant, that grievance notice had not been served, that the appellant had received benefits towards total and final settlement of his dues, therefore, he was debarred from coming to the Court.
3. ' The appellant stated before the learned lower Court that one Habibullah Costing clerk already in service was posted in his place against the post of Costing clerk vacated by him. One Muhammad Sharif Production Clerk was promoted in place of Muhammad Sharif and another man was appointed as Production Clerk. Mr. Mazhar Imam Kazi R. W. I. Deposed that no new man was employed in place of the appellant. No question was put to this witness in cross-examination about the posting of Habibullah in place of the appellant, about the promotion of Muhammad Sharif as Costing Clerk and appointment of another man as Production Clerk in place of Muhammad Sharif. Since no posting and promotion orders were got summoned from the respondent, the appellant could prove this through any admission made by R. W. 1 but no such questions were put. So far as the appointment of Production Clerk in place of Muhammad Sharif is concerned, even the name of that person was not given by the appellant. Mere vague statement of the appellant controverted by the R. W. I was not sufficient to prove the contention. The appellant knew that he had taken the stand that another man was appointed as Production Clerk so if it had been a fact, he would have inquired the name of the person from some employee of the respondent before coming in the witness-box. He thus failed to prove his case.
4. ' However, this finding of the learned lower Court is wrong that service of grievance notice was not proved. Copy of the notice and postal receipt have been produced and the appellant has stated that he had himself posted the letter. Address is given correctly on the postal receipt. The presumption therefore, was that the letter which had been not come back had reached the addressee. Examination of postman was not necessary for the appellant. R. W. 1 not doubt said that no notice of the appellant had been received by the respondent but he did not say that it was his duty to receive such notice and that no such notice had been received by him. The employee whose duty is to receive and dairy such notices was not examined. The presumption, therefore, was not rebutted.
5. The appellant had received the dues as detailed in P. A. He said that all the dues were not paid meaning some had been paid. Bonus was note paid as till then it had not been declared. Since the appellant failed to prove his case, his petition, therefore, was rightly dismissed.
6. ' There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.