DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No,III at Karachi, dated 30-7-1988, whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
2. The case of the appellant in brief is that he was removed from service without any charge-sheet, enquiry or an opportunity of being heard. Whereas the case of the respondents is that he had fought with his follow workers on 6-10-1985, causing serious injuries upon the two workers, one of whom, namely, Iqbal had died, therefore, the appellant was removed from service on the report of the enquiry officer, which was held after due service of the charge-sheet on the appellant and also due service of notice of the enquiry, but, he did not participate.
3. I have heard Mr.Shafique Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Farooq A.Ghani, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents.
4. The only ground on which the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant is that in his cross-examination, he disowned his thumb impression upon the grievance notice as well as grievance petition before the Labour Court. The learned Presiding Officer, while dismissing the grievance petition has relied upon NLR 1981 T D page 17, wherein it was held that "grievance notice which does not bear signature of workman suffers from legal infirmity and the decision of Labour Court directing re-instatement on grievance petition arising out of unsigned grievance notice was set aside by Tribunal".
5. In the cross-examination, the appellant on 21-4-1988, had categorically stated that the grievance notice which was shown to him did not bear his left hand thumb-impression. He was also shown his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, and the appellant had stated that it also did not bear his left hand thumb impression or right hand thumb-impression. After the side of the parties was closed and the respondent had submitted his written arguments on 19-7-1988 viz., after about 3 months, the appellant had moved an application stating therein that the word "not" used in two sentences was a typing error and in fact he had stated that his grievance notice and the grievance petition did bear his thumb-impression. The learned Presiding Officer did not accept this plea of the appellant and dismissed his grievance petition for the above reasons.
6. I have also gone through the cross-examination of the appellant. It clearly shows that he had denied the thumb-impression on the grievance notice as well as on the grievance petition to be his. He has also denied his thumb-impression on all the documents shown to him. In his affidavit- in-evidence he had mentioned that his thumb-impression was obtained on vouchers by the respondents without any payment, but, in his cross-examination, he had denied his thumb impression upon the vouchers and denied to have so stated in his affidavit. He stated that his statement in the Court was correct.
7. I also fad that the appellant is able to sign. He has signed his cross-examination and subsequently also put his thumb-impression on it. I fad that he has put his signature upon the application of the respondents which is at page 21 in token of having received the copy of the same. He has also put his signature as a token of having received the reply statement. I also find that he has signed various other documents including his application for adjournment on 10-41988.
Normally a person who is able to sign would not put his thumb impression upon the documents. All these facts support the opinion of the learned Presiding Officer that the statement of the appellant in the cross-examination denying his thumb impression upon the two aforesaid documents was made by him and it was not a typing error.
8. Section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, is very clear that the aggrieved worker has himself to bring his grievance to the notice of the employer and also to take grievance petition before the Labour Court either himself or through the Shop Steward.
9. In view of the above facts and discussion, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.