DECISION This is an appeal filed by the, appellant against an impugned order, dated 2-11-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant filed by him under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman in the respondent mills and was elected as Organizing Secretary of the Dawood Cotton Mills Azad Labour Union, which annoyed the respondent mills as they favoured the other labour union, which was the Collective Bargaining Agent. The appellant alleged that as another referendum for electing the Collective Bargaining Agent was to be held in February, 1983, therefore, the respondent mills felt apprehended of the presence of the appellant in their mills and in order to get rid of him, a false and concocted complaint has managed against him through one Nazeer Ahmad, Second Officer to the effect that on 1-9-1982 at 4.00 p.m. At the end of the shift, the appellant had stopped the workers of the suffering outgoing of the Reeling Department and delivered a speech and raised slogans against the management and consequently, a charge-sheet, dated 8-9-1982 was issued to him and that the alleged domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Law as the enquiry officer had allowed all the witnesses to remain present during the proceedings at the time of recording of the statements and that one, Noor Ahmad, Administration Manager was not competent to sign the dismissal letter of the appellant.
3. The respondent mills resisted the petition and denied the allegations of victimization of the appellant and submitted that the election of the appellant as Organizing Secretary of the Azad Union was not within their knowledge and that there was any annoyance between them and that any false or connected complaint was managed against the appellant. The respondent mills has alleged that the appellant had stopped the workers of outgoing shift of Reeling Department, delivered a speech and instigated the workers to raise slogans against the management, therefore, the appellant was charge---sheeted and a proper, lawful and impartial domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which the appellant was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and that the Administration Manager, namely, Noor Ahmad, being lawfully notified Factory Manager, was competent to sign the dismissal order of the appellant. Hence, the grievance petition of the appellant could not be sustained and was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood A.
Ghani, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent mills. At the very outset, Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani for the respondent mills had challenged the maintainability of the grievance petition of the appellant before the learned Labour Court on the ground that on 30-11-1982 it was submitted by Mirza A Muhammad Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant and not by the appellant himself which was contrary to the requirement of the! Law. He has referred to me the nothings on the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, by the learned Labour Court , as under:- "Presented by the Advocate Mr. Kazim Mirza on behalf of the applicant, the application a/s 25-A I.R.O. 1969 alongwith its enclosures A to E in original.
The application is within our jurisdiction and time. Submitted before P.O. For orders please. Admit.
Register. Notice. Hearing on 16-12-1982.
Sd/- P.O.
30-11-1982."
6. For the reasons stated by me above. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is l accordingly dismissed.