DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 28-2-1984, passed by the Labour Court NO. VlI, Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as assistant salesman since 6-1-1982 and on 16-6-1983 he was served with a charge-sheet, dated 12-6-1983 that a shortage of an amount of Rs.26,883.80 was detected from his account by the Accounts Officer on 21-5-1983. On 9- 10-1983 services of the appellant were terminated vide order, dated 4-8-1983, though he submitted a satisfactory reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter the appellant preferred a department appeal, also alongwith a grievance notice, dated 23-10-1983 by registered post, A/D, but, as he did not receive any reply therefore, he filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondent Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant had deliberately made shortage of stock worth Rs. 26, 883.80 which was detected on 25-5-1983 and again he made shortage of stock worth Rs:3,780.12. As the appellant could not reply satisfactorily, therefore, an enquiry officer, namely, Mr. Abdul Feteh Sanghri, Area Manager, was, appointed to conduct the enquiry and such an intimation was sent by the respondent establishment to the appellant, but he refused to receive the same. On 28-7-1983, an F.I. R. Was also lodged against the appellant with F.I. A. Police at Sukkur. A second show cause notice was also served upon the appellant on 27-7-1983 and ultimately his services were rightly terminated vide letter, dated 4-8- 1983. That the appellant did not serve the grievance notice upon the respondent establishment as required by the relevant Law, before filing a grievance petition before the Labour Court , therefore. On this ground also, the petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court , therefore, had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Sheikh Amanullah, the learned advocate for the appellant and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. Admittedly the appellant had failed to file any cogent document to prove that he had served a grievance notice upon the respondent establishment, though he had simply mentioned of it that the A/D Card in original with stamp of the respondent establishment bearing the signature of a Clerk, namely, Ayaz Ali was being produced alongwith his affidavit but, actually he did not produce the same. While, on the other hand, during the course of the arguments before the learned Labour Court , the appellant had himself stated that his A/D Card etc. Had fallen from his pocket while he was coming back from the post office after getting the grievance notice registered to the respondent establishment. This is clearly a contradictory statement on the part of the appellant himself therefore, it had substance and it is proved that he did not submit a grievance notice on the respondent establishment before filing of his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court . This is a mandatory requirement of Law. I am, therefore, satisfied that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the appellant had miserably failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 25-A, I. R.O. 1969 and thus the petition was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. 1, therefore, hold the same view as been taken by the learned Labour Court
6. For the above reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.