DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of 1st Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 16th April, 1983, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance application of the appellant on the grounds that the same was miserably time-barred.
2. The facts are that the appellant, Sher Afghan, was appointed as Draughtsman by the respondent-company on 16th April, 1974, and in the month of June, 1976, he was posted at Saudi Arabia. On 10th August, 1978, he was transferred to Kuwait where he worked upto 9th October, 1980.
In the month of November, 1980, it is alleged that the services of the appellant were transferred to Karachi. The appellant further alleges that he reported for duty at Karachi on 22nd November, 1980, but he was not assigned any duty but, however, a letter, dated 22nd December, 1980, was served on the appellant that he was posted at Iraq. By another letter, dated 24th December, 1980, he was informed that it has been decided to fix the salary of the appellant in Pakistani currency. Thereafter the appellant visited the respondent-establishment for a number of times but no further instructions were given to him. Then, the appellant moved an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Surprisingly he received a notice, dated 26th October, 1981 that his services were already dismissed.. The letter is Annexure 'G'. Therefore, the appellant sent a grievance notice, dated 15th December, 1981, Annexure 'H'. No reply was received from the respondent and hence he filed the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. In the: reply statement it was submitted that the appellant's services were terminated on 22nd December, 1980 and hence the present grievance petition was time-barred. There is an admission on the part of the respondents that indeed the services of the appellant were posted at Saudi Arabia and then at Kuwait. He worked on the Project at Kuwait till 30th June, 1980 when the Project was completed and his assignment was over. He was further utilized for other purposes till 9th October, 1980. His accounts were also settled on 9th October, 1980. The remaining allegations by the appellant, namely, that he was posted at Iraq and that thereafter be attended the office of the respondent-establishment are denied. The Annexures 'E' and `G' are forged and there is no truth that he was transferred to Iraq. The fact is that his services were terminated on 22nd December, 1980 on his return of Pakistan and as the company had no Project in progress .In Pakistan at that time. The agreement on which he was posted to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ended as the Projects there, were completed. He had no lien at Karachi.
4. The appellant filed his affidavit Exh. 4 and was cross-examined. The respondent filed their affidavit of Muhammad Nabi Zuberi and Mrs. Talat Abbasi and were duly cross-examined.
5. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellant and also the counsel of the respondents. I have gone through attentively the record and the impugned order. It is necessary to deal with the evidence of Mrs. Talat Abbasi of the respondent-establishment who has made clear the case of the respondents and the appellant. Her evidence is at page 100, Exh. 5 of the record of the Lower Court. At para. 6 of her affidavit there is averment by this witness that the appellant was fully and finally settled his accounts on 9th October, 1980 and his services were no longer required. However, the appellant left for Pakistan on 25th November, 1980 for the reasons best known to him and that he did not report to the office of the establishment. At paragraph 7 she has averred that she was asked -by the "Head Office - at Abu Dubai through Telex message to issue the letter a. Termination of the appellant and the telex message is dated 20th December, 1980. Accordingly the services of the appellant were terminated-on 22nd December, 1980 under her signatures. The termination order was sent through post to the appellant where true copy of the same was retained by her. She has averred that Annexures `E' and 'G' do not bear her signatures and they are forged and fabricated.
6. Briefly, therefore, Mrs. Talat Abbasi maintained that the services of the appellant were terminated on 22nd December, 1980, and further developments as stated by the appellant are false and the Annexures produced by him contained the forged signatures and the letters are fabricated. This is the case of the respondents and its entire matter was thrashed by the Labour Court in a detailed analysis and checking and compared the registers maintained by the respondents in respect of the serial numbers entered into by the respondents and the serial numbers mentioned by the appellant. I have myself taken the signatures of Mrs. Talat Abbasi which are on record and have compared them with the documents on which the appellant has relied upon and feel that the signature are forged. There could be no better evidence than the evidence of responsible officer who avers that the services of the appellant were terminated on 22nd December, 1980. The version put forward by the appellant do not sound correct and there is inordinate delay of giving a notice of grievance to the establishment and the reasons assigned by the appellant are his own creation basing on forged and fabricated letters. These forged and fabricated letters are analysed by the Labour Court and I can better quote paragraphs 2 to 6 of the impugned order as under "2. The perusal of Exhs. P. 4 and P. 6 further indicate that the same have not been drafted in a language which is used by a renowned commercial establishment. Furthermore there are grave gramatical mistakes. For instance in the letters Exh. P. 4 the term "what the management has decided to post in Iraq over project." And the term "that t management has decided to fix your basic salary in Pakistan Currency\ " as used in the letter Exh. P. 6, clearly indicate that these two litters have been drafted by a person who has no knowledge of English Grammar. So much so that the correct spelling of the country "In Iraqi" is not known to the person who drafted these letters.
Naturally such letters having bad English and gramatical mistakes or not, expected to have been signed by Mrs. Talat Abbasi who is Senior Personnel Officer of a renowned establishment.
3. Similarly there appeared no occasion for Mrs. Talat Abbasi to address the applicant as "My dear" such form and, at the most, is used in a private letter and not in an official letter addressed to a draughtsman by the Senior Personnel Officer who happens to be a lady.
4. It is a matter of general routine that the number of letter is always written by the despatcher in his own hand and is never typed. What 1 mean-to say is that the numbers "083" and "089" appearing on original litters Exhs. P. 4 and. P. 6, respectively should have been written by the despatcher in his own hand and were not to be typed.
5. The respondent has also filed photostat copies of the aforesaid entries from the despatch register, as Exhs. R. 9 and R.10 annexed to the affidavit in evidence of Mrs. Talat Abbasi. During the course of the present proceedings the original despatch register having entries from 1st June, 1 978 to the month of August, 1982 was also produced by the respondent and is kept on the record of this case. The perusal of the entries R. 9 and R. 10 in the original registers indicate that dated 22nd.
December, 1980 having serial number "083" was termination sent to the applicant Sher Afghan at his Rawalpindi address. Similarly entry R. 10 indicates that the latter having serial number "089" was sent to the disbursement officer for final settlement of accounts of the applicant Sher Afghan. It is pertinent to note that the original letters Exhs. P. 4 and P. 6 filed by the applicant having serial numbers "083" and "089" do not at all tally with the subject-matters given in the original despatch register and the photostat copies of the relevant entries R. 9 and R.
10. This fact gives strong support to the contention of the respondent that the original envelope produced by the applicant as P. 5 in the case filed before the Authority actually contained the termination letter as the number "083" given on the envelope Exh. P. 5 is the number given to the termination letter as evident from the relevant entries in the original despatch register). For the same reasons there is strong force in the contention of the respondent that the original envelope Exh. P. 7 in fact contained the copy of the letter addressed by Mrs. Talat Abbasi to the disbursement officer for the final settlement of the account of applicant Sher Afghan.
6. The applicant has produced a letter Exh. P. 8 in the case file before the Authority and whose copy is produced with the present petition as Annexure 'H'. This letter is dated 26th October, 1981 and bears reference No, NC/PER/81/3261. According to the applicant this is the termination, letter which was received by him from the respondent. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that this letter is a forged document. I have carefully considered the contentions of both the parties in respect of the genuiness or otherwise of the letter Exh. P.
8. 1 have come to the conclusion of the allegation of the applicant does not appear to be correct for the following reasons :-
(i) For the reasons given in the earlier part of this order while discussing the genuiness of the letters Exhs. P. 5 and P. 6, I have come to the conclusion that the signatures of Mrs. Talat Abbasi appearing on this letter (P. 8) do not tally with the signatures appearing in her affidavit in evidence. Thus, the letter Exh. P. 8 cannot be claimed to have been signed by Mrs. Talat Abbasi.
(ii) As above-stated the serial number mentioned in letter Exh. P. 8 is "3261" dated 26th October, 1981. The perusal of the original entries in the despatch register produced by the respondent indicates that only three letters were despatched on 26th October, 1981 which bear number "1329", "1392" and "1394" none of these letters is addressed to applicant Sher Afghan. Furthermore, the original entries in the depatch register indicate that the last letter despatched on 31st December, 1981 was numbered "1604". This fact clearly shows that the serial number "3261" given on Exh. P. 8 is a bogus number and no such letter was ever sent to the applicant by the respondent."
7. The analysis of the learned Labour Court appears to be sound and the version of the appellant is quite false and fabricated.
8. Accordingly, I find no force in this appeal, therefore, it stand dismissed.