DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 24-3-1984, passed by the Sind Labour No.III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I . R.O.
1969.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on 22-10-1975 as a Typist in the respondent establishment and was posted in one of its projects, known as Hot Strip Mills Project, Pakistan Steel, Karachi. On 5-12-1982, the appellant was verbally informed by the respondent establishment that his services were terminated with effect from 30-11-1982. The appellant challenged this termination as mala fide and he then approached the Manager Personnel who then advised him to make a formal request in writing for absorption at any office or project of the respondent establishment. Then, the appellant submitted such an application, but, he was not called for re-employment. However, on 19-2-1983, the appellant served a grievance notice upon the respondent establishment and after receiving a reply dated 3-3-1983 thereto by the respondent establishment that on completion of the project of Pakistan Steel, his services were terminated and that he was offered a post of Typist on the same terms and conditions of service, vide letter, dated 12-12-1982, but, he did not join the same, therefore, his grievance cannot be redressed. On receipt of this reply, the appellant submitted his grievance petition, under section 25-A, I. R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court by submitting that the order of termination was not in writing, his termination from service was mala fide as he was victimized due to his trade union activities and that junior persons were retained in the employment of the respondent establishment.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition and submitted that the appellant was not an employee of the Head Office of the respondent establishment, namely, National Construction Limited, but, he was appointed on Project basis, therefore, his seniority was to be reckoned on project basis and on completion of the project, Hot Strip Mills Project, Pakistan Steel, Karachi, he was rendered surplus alongwith other 200 workmen resulting in their termination of services. The respondent establishment also submitted that the order of termination of services of the appellant was in writing and as the appellant had refused to take delivery of it in a Peon Book, bearing such endorsement, it was sent by registered post, A/D and it was received by him. The respondent establishment also submitted that on receipt of this termination letter, the appellant had himself moved an application requesting therein to be absorbed in any other project, therefore, he was offered a post on the same terms and conditions at their project at Dandot Cement Project, Jhelum, but the appellant did not report for duty threat. That neither the appellant was an office- bearer or an active member of the trade union, nor, any allegation of unfair labour practice against the respondent establishment, was ever made by the trade union, therefore, it was baseless and false to state by the appellant that he was victimized. Further it was never a case of the appellant that the appellant was discriminated by relating juniors to him in the employment. The respondent establishment, thus, submitted that as the appellant had no case, therefore, his grievance petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavit-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the petition of the appellant, hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the appellant, while, nemo was present on behalf of the respondent establishment. I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. There is an admitted position that on completion of the Hot Strip Mills Project, Pakistan Steel, the appellant was rendered surplus alongwith other 200 workmen and as such his services were terminated by a written order, which was subsequently received by him through registered, A/D, letter. There is also an admitted position that on coming-to know this termination of service, the appellant had submitted a written application requesting therein to be absorbed in any other Project of the respondent establishment and then on receipt of such offer by the respondent establishment, the appellant did not report for duty at Dandot Cement Project, Jhelum. The fact of the retrenchment of the workmen at Hot Strip Mills Project, Pakistan Steel, where the appellant was working at the time of his termination of services, is an established fact of the record that the respondent establishment had produced such Judgments of the National Industrial relations Commission, Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi and also of this Tribunal. Therefore in view of the admitted facts and the relevant Judgments with regard to it, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the termination of services of the appellant was in writing and he had no case as regards to this point. I also hold it accordingly, as has already been held by the learned Labour Court
6. As regards to the next point of the appellant that he was victimized due to his trade union activities, therefore, the termination order was mala fide. There is nothing on record except the sole word of the appellant to show that the appellant was either an office --bearer or an active worker of the trade union or there is any evidence on record to prove that there was a difference of opinion, on any issue, between the trade union and the respondent establishment. None of the office-bearer of the trade union was produced by the appellant in support of his allegation of either unfair practice or the victimization. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected this plea of mala fide of the appellant.
7. Lastly, it was pleaded by the appellant that juniors to him were retained. Admittedly, this plea was never taken by the appellant, either in his grievance notice or even in his grievance petition.
Therefore, at a belated stage of evidence before the learned Labour Court , the appellant was lawfully barred to raise such a fresh plea. In this regard, I am fortified with several authorities reported in 1975 PLC 32 and 196; PLD 1979 Kar. 490; 1981 PLC 660, 1982 PLC 582 and 1984 PLC 61. I, would, therefore, hold that this plea of the appellant was also rightly rejected by the learned Labour Court
8. For the reasons stated by me above, I would see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, thus, I would maintain it. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H./945/Lb.S