' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 19th March, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be paid full wages for the period of suspension. Further, direction was issued to fix the pay of the respondent by adding increments to which he would have been entitled if he had not been suspended.
2. On a short ground the appeal can be accepted and i. e. That the grievance notice was invalid, inasmuch as it was issued by the counsel for the respondent and not the respondent himself. The requirement of section 25-A (1) is that the grievance notice be given by the workman himself or it may be sent through his shop steward or C. B. A. There is no mention of the fact that a grievance notice can be given by a lawyer on behalf of the workman. It has been observed in PLD 1980 SC 80 that the grievance notice given by the lawyer is invalid, inasmuch as the direction is that it be given by the workman himself or it may be given through shop steward or C. B. A. It has been further observed that where the law provides a mode in which an act may be done, it should be done in that mode and in no other mode. I, therefore, hold that the notice is invalid. Since the service of grievance notice is prerequisite for giving a grievance petition and the provisions in this respect are mandatory, the grievance petition was incompetent. I, accordingly, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned trial Judge, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.