DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30-1-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, 1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, directing his reinstatement in service. With full back benefits.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent claimed to be a permanent employee of the appellant and that on 13-10-1984 without assigning any reason or service of a proper charge-sheet, he was mala fide and illegally dismissed from service and being aggrieved he filed his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court.
3. The appellant resisted the petition on the ground that the services of the respondent were terminated on 10-10-1984 during the probationary period as he was appointed on temporary basis with effect from 21-7-1984 against a job of temporary nature specifically mentioning the condition therein that when the job would finish, his services would be terminated. The case of the appellant further was that after accepting this condition the respondent had received this appointment letter by putting his thumb-impression and that when the said job was finished his services were terminated on 10-10-1984 vide a letter, bearing his thumb-impression and thereafter the respondent had himself collected all his dues, in full and final settlement and to acknowledge, he had also put his thumb-impression on Payment Voucher. The appellant also claimed that he was simply a Contractor of Messrs Arif & Company through an agreement, dated 26-7-1984 and was running the business quite independently, and that he never employed 50 workers in the factory under his contract, and that the respondent was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S. Safdar Hussain, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Yousuf Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments filed by the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that as the respondent had denied his thumb-impressions on his appointment letter, termination of services letter and the payment vouchers and in view of his denial the appellant Contractor had made an application before the learned Labour Court to send these thumb-impressions to the Handwriting Expert for verification, therefore, in view of this position the learned Labour Court was bound to grant such an application before passing the impugned order.
' It is an admitted position that the appellant was not an employer but, he was a contractor. There is also nothing on record to establish that at any time there were 50 or more workers employed in the establishment. After perusal of the record, I find that the respondent had not sworn his affidavit-in-evidence before the competent authority, but, admittedly, he had signed this affidavit in the office of his Advocate. Unless a person appears in person before the competent authority and swears his affidavit it cannot be taken into consideration as lawfully sworn affidavit-invidence.
Therefore, the learned Labour Court was not correct in taking judicial notice of it and allowing such an affidavit, as a lawful evidence of the respondent. In view of this position, I am of the view that there is no evidence on behalf of the respondent in support of his case. I would also not hold the observation of the learned Labour Court as correct that the appellant being an educated person cannot sign in Urdu, the letter terminating the services of the respondent in view of the admitted position that he had signed the affidavit-inevidence in English. As per Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Urdu is a National Language and unless such signatures, in different languages, are not denied by the signatory himself it would not be justifiable to hold such signatures by the same person as not to be legally maintainable. I would, therefore, hold that the services of the respondent were terminated under the lawful signatures of the appellant Contractor. I find that except the bare words there is nothing cogent on record in support of the claim of the respondent, therefore, the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 could not be sustained. Before parting with this decision, I would also observe here that the grievance petition of the respondent before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, was also not legally maintainable for the main reason that it was not submitted by the respondent in person being an aggrieved person, but, it was submitted by his learned representative, vide the noting on the Ordersheet/Diary of the learned Labour Court, dated 12-2- 1985. Under the law, it is essential that an aggrieved person or, persons are mandatorily duty bound to submit, in person, their grievance petitions or appeals either before the learned Labour Court or even before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and not solely through their agent, attorney, authorized person, representative and/or an Advocate.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The result would be that the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 of the respondent is dismissed. The amount of back benefits already deposited by the appellant Contractor before the Tribunal be immediately returned to him. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.