DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order dated 29-3-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been permanently employed with the respondent mills as Head Jobber doing manual and skilled work under the supervision of Weaving Master since 1978 and that he was not issued any appointment letter. He claimed that on 12-7-1986 he was removed from the employment without assigning any reason or even without holding any enquiry in case of any misconduct and if not, then without giving him any notice or pay in lieu thereof. Being aggrieved the appellant claimed to have sent his grievance notice followed by his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
3. The respondent mills, instead of resisting the petition on merits, had raised the legal objection on the maintainability of the petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court as it was not submitted before it by an aggrieved person, namely, the appellant but it was filed by a Lawyer which was not permissible by Law.
4. After hearing both the parties on this legal objection the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent mills and have also perused the record, proceedings of the case as well as the original petition of the appellant. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and in accordance with the settled principle of Law, thus, needs not to be interfered. From the perusal of the Diary sheet of the grievance Petition No, 204/86 under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, dated 19-11-1986 before the learned Labour Court, it is crystal clear that at the submission of the petition before the learned Labour Court the appellant was absent and it was submitted by Mr. S. M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant.
It is the consistent view of this Tribunal as well as the superior Courts, that all grievances must be submitted by an aggrieved person either before the learned Labour Court or before this Tribunal.
Here, this is not the case. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant has miserably failed to submit any case law in rebuttal of this view.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. I would accordingly dismiss the present appeal.