' This is an appeal against the decision dated 30-6-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant failed to establish the service of the grievance notice.
2. The case of the appellant so far as the question in dispute is concerned is that he had delivered notice to the head clerk and obtained his initials on the Photostat copy of the notice Exh. P.-15. He also deposed that at that time Khadim Hussain R.W. 1 who had held the enquiry and some other clerks were present. Mr. Khadim Hussain Enquiry Officer was examined as R.W. 1 but no question was put to him by either party about the service of the grievance notice. R.W. 2 Zulfikar Hussain Yard Superintendent was examined to rebut the evidence produced by the appellant with regard to service of the grievance notice. He deposed that the initials appearing on Ex. P.-15 were not of the head clerk. It was further stated by him that the initials of the head clerk which he had seen and which he had not brought did not tally with the initials present on Exit P.15 alleged to be in token of the receipt of the grievance notice. The finding of the learned lower Court on the point is wrong. The appellant discharged the onus by stating that he had delivered the grievance notice to a person who was head clerk. No doubt he did not give the name of the head clerk but he cannot be blamed for that. He could not foresee that the receipt of the grievance notice by the head clerk would be denied. No doubt, he said that some other clerks were present but in cross-examination the names of those clerks were not enquired from him. If such a question had been put and the appellant had given the names of some of them of course a question could have arisen that he should have examined some of those persons for corroboration of his own testimony about the delivery of the grievance notice. Possibility cannot be excluded that he did not know the names of the clerks who according to him were present at the time he had delivered the grievance notice. Since the appellant positively asserted in his statement that Khadim Hussain Enquiry Officer was present at that time, the respondent should have examined the said witness on the point. Failure on the part of the respondent shows that the respondent was not confident that Khadim Hussain would say that the appellant had not delivered notice to the head clerk in his presence. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant should have enquired from the Enquiry Officer about the delivery of grievance notice but I do not find any force in this argument. The Enquiry Officer was an adverse witness, therefore, it was unsafe for the appellant to put such a question to him when the respondent had elected not to examine the said witness on the said point. So far as this point is concerned that the head clerk was not examined by the petitioner, the very witness examined by the respondent said that the said head clerk had left service and his address was not known. By this statement of R.W. 2 that the initials of the head clerk present on P-15 do not tally with the initials which he (the witness) has seen is not reliable. He does not say that he had seen the head clerk writing and signing or the head clerk had been working with him. He even does not say that he is familiar with the signatures and the initials of the said head clerk. If at all R.W. 2 ever happened to see the initials of the head clerk, he cannot be believed to say that the initials of the head clerk appearing on Exh. P-15 are not of the said head clerk. He admitted that he was not a hand-writing expert. The statement of the appellant about the delivery of the grievance notice, therefore, stood unrequited, and therefore, the learned lower Court erred in discarding the same.
3. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned I c decision it is held that the service of the grievance notice stands proved. Since the case has not been decided on merits, the same is remanded for full decision.