DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 7-8-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.11, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the appellant was a permanent workman of the respondent mills and that as he was an undesirable person for his trade union, therefore, he was under continuous disciplinary action by the respondent mills since 1977 and that he was illegally dismissed from service by the respondent mills. That against this dismissal, the appellant preferred a grievance petition before the Labour Court, who had allowed the grievance petition directing the respondent mills to reinstate the appellant and also affording the opportunity to the respondent mills for re-enquiry into the matter, vide its order, dated 2-1-1984. That, against this order, both the parties filed cross appeals before this Tribunal and that an Appeal No.24 of 1984 filed by the present appellant was still pending before this Tribunal, the appellant reported for duty by sending a letter under registered cover and joining the duty on 16-2-1984 with a request that as the issue of holding fresh enquiry was sub-judice before this Tribunal, therefore, till the decision on the said appeal, the re-enquiry proceedings be stayed. That despite of this request, the respondent mills proceeded with the holding of the fresh enquiry and finally it was served with the copies of the old charge-sheets, dated 6-10-1977, and that these proceedings were held ex parte. That, consequently the appellant was dismissed from service, vide order dated 28-4-1984 as a result of this enquiry, therefore, he submitted a grievance notice upon the respondent mills within three months, vide letter, dated 26-7-1984 and subsequently the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.
R.O., 1969.
3. The respondent mills objected to the maintainability of the petition under section 25-A I.R.0, 1969, before the Labour Court on the ground that the appellant did not serve the mandatory grievance notice upon them, hence, the appellant could not maintain the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
4. Both the parties filed the affidavits-in-evidence in support of their respective contentions and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court, held, that as the grievance notice was not properly served by the appellant upon the respondent mills, therefore, the grievance petition was liable to be dismissed, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard the appellant, in person. His learned Advocate Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim absent. I have also heard Mr. Itrat Puri, the learned Representative on behalf of the respondent mills and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It is submitted by Mr. Itrat Puri for the respondent mills that according to the contents of the grievance petition under section 25-A 1.
R.O., 1969 the grievance notice was served on 26-7-1984, but, according to the postal receipt No.53, dated 25-7-1984, produced by the appellants witness, namely, Iftikhar Muhammad Khan, Post Master, it cannot be a grievance notice, dated 26-7-1984, but, according to the postal receipt No.53, dated 25-7-1984, produced by the appellant's witness, namely Iftikhar Muhammad Khan, Post Master, it cannot be a grievance notice, dated 26-7-1984. He further pleaded that the name of the addressee was not legible; therefore, it cannot be read to be the name and address of the respondent mills. Mr. Puri further pointed out that according to the appellant, he served the grievance notice on 26-7-1984, whereas the copy of the grievance notice produced by him alongwith his grievance petition was dated 15-7-1984, so, all these facts strongly lead to the presumption that the registered letter alleged to nave been received by the Chowkidar of the respondent mills, namely, Muhammad Shah did not contain the grievance notice of the appellant.
The respondent mills further pleaded that apart from the above, even, if it be presumed that the registered letter alleged to have been received by Muhammad Shah Chowkidar, containing the grievance notice, then, the grievance notice cannot be said to have been served on the respondents inasmuch as the service of grievance notice on an employee/ workman does not amount to service on the employer and in support of the above contention, Mr. Itrat Puri has referred me to the case, reported in 1981 PLC at page 208, wherein it was held by this Tribunal as under:- "Furthermore receipt of the notices by an employees, assuming it that Abdul Ghaffar in fact received the notices, is not service upon the employer."
Mr. Itrat Puri has contended that as a matter of fact Chowkidar Muhammad Shah could never have received the alleged registered letter inasmuch as he has no reason to be present in the respondents mills at 5-30 p.m. On 28-7-1984 as according to the evidence of Malik Muhammad Zaman, Labour and Administrative Officer of the respondent mills, Chowkidar Muhammad Shah was on duty on 28-7-1984 in the first shift which had worked from 7-00 a. m. To 3-00 p. m. And that his evidence to this effect had gone unchallenged and unrebutted as no suggestion to the contrary was put to him in his cross-examination. In view of this legal and factual position, I hold that the appellant had no case as he did not serve the grievance notice upon the employer i.e. The A respondent mills, therefore, his grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.O., 1969, before Labour Court was not maintainable.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that I maintain the impugned order and would dismiss this appeal.