On Application U/O VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
' By this single order I propose to dispose of applications under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Made in above two grievance applications as the facts of applications and the points raised during the course of arguments are similar in both the matters.
2. It is the case of applicants that they are permanent workers of the opponent and have been performing their duties satisfactorily. They have alleged that the workers of the opponent had formed trade union namely Abbasin International Workers Union and an application for registration of their trade union was made, the intimation of which was given to the opponent. It is further alleged by the applicants that they were threatened by the opponent to finish the union else they would be removed from service and on refusal by the applicants to do so the opponent terminated their services verbally without assigning any reason for the same. After serving the grievance notice upon the opponent the applicants have filed the present applications.
3. After all the applicants examined themselves and closed their side these applications were made which are mainly based on admissions made by the applicants and the legal aspects of the case.
4. I have heard the learned Advocate for the opponent and the representative for the applicants.
The main contention raised by the learned Advocate for the opponent is that the applicants have admitted in their cross-examination that they had not presented their applications before this Court and as such their grievance petitions are incompetent and not maintainable as per authorities reported in 1982 PLC 1007 and 1989 PLC 93.
5. Another important point raised by the learned Advocate for the opponent is that the petitioners have admitted in the cross-examination that they had not sent the grievance notices and the opponent has also denied to have received the grievance notices in the reply statements and as such the applications of the applicants are premature and not maintainable.
6. It was also contended by the learned Advocate for the opponent that petitioner Sher Alam has stated in his cross-examination that his grievance notice and petition do not bear his signatures and the petitioner Zaibun Nisa has disowned her name to be Zaibun-Nisa.
7. On the other hand the representative of the applicants contended that neither the opponent has examined himself nor has produced any document on the record nor has confronted the petitioners with any document, and hence the arguments advanced by the Advocate for the opponent should not be considered at this stage. He furtherer submitted that according to the record of this Court the applications were properly presented and therefore the applications are maintainable.
8. So far as the first contention raised by the learned Advocate for the opponent is concerned I find that there is sufficient weight in it and the representative of the applicants also could not rebut this argument. It has been admitted by the applicants in their cross-examination that they had not come in this Court at the time of presentation/filing of the present applications and they have come for the first time today (on the date of their cross-examination viz. 14-1-1989). This is a sufficient admission to show that they had not appeared in person at the time of presentation of the applications. Besides the note of the C.O.C. Also does not show that the petitions were presented by the petitioners but it shows that the petitions were presented by the representative of the applicants and does not support the contention of the representative of the applicants. I have also gone through the authorities quoted by the learned Advocate for the opponent and find that they exactly apply to the present matters as in both the authorities the principle laid down is that if the petition is not presented by the petitioner in person but by the representative then it is not competent and maintainable. On this score alone I find that the above petitions are not maintainable and competent. The mere fact that the opponent has not yet been examined and no document has been produced, will not take away the benefit of important admission given by the petitioners. Even if the opponent does not examine himself and straightaway the matters are argued then also the fatal admission given by the petitioners is sufficient to hold that petitions are incompetent and not maintainable.
9. Another important point raised by the learned Advocate for the opponent is that even the grievance notices were not received by the opponent as per reply statement and the applicants have admitted in their cross-examination that they had not sent the grievance notices. The perusal of the cross-examination of the applicants shows that only petitioners in the application No, 5/88, Sher Alam and Saleem have denied to have given the grievance notice while Jameel has stated to have given the grievance notice and Tahira has stated that she does not remember to have given the notice, the necessary implication of which will be that she had also not given notice as this is to be specifically stated in positive terms. However, in the application No, 6/88 all the petitioners have denied to have given the grievance notice which lends support to the contention of the learned Advocate for the opponent that denial of receipt of grievance notice from the petitioners by the opponent is established and admitted. This is also fatal to the petitions as without giving grievance notice filing of the grievance petition becomes premature and this Court cannot entertain such petition.
10. It is also the matter of record that Sher Alam has stated in his cross-examination that his grievance notice as well as petition do not bear his signatures in application No, 5/88. Similarly in application No, 6/88 petitioner Zaibun-Nisa, in her cross-examination, has disowned her name to be Zaibun-Nisa which will be fatal to their individual cases but it would not affect the petitions of others. However, from these facts also it will be clear that the grievance notices as well as petitions were sent and presented, apparently, without the knowledge of the petitioners and without actually bringing them in this Court on the date of presentation. If the petitions can be disposed of on the admissions given by the petitioners themselves as stated above then it will be wastage of time to record the evidence of opponent. If the petitioners cannot stand on their own legs even, then examination of the opponent and production of documents will be only a formal thing and of no avail to them. In this matter I find that it will amount to abuse of process of law, wastage of time of Court and delaying the proceedings of the decision is deferred only for the purpose of recording the evidence of opponents as whatever the evidence will come from the opponent it will not improve the case of petitioners and cannot brush away the fatal admissions given by them on the basis of which the matters can be properly disposed of on the preliminary legal objections discussed above. I, therefore, find that the petitions are premature, incompetent and not maintainable. Accordingly the petitions stand dismissed.