DECISION These four appeals are being disposed of by this single Decision as the legal ground on which they are being disposed of is common in all the four appeals.
2. The respondents, in all the four appeals had filed grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad against their respective employers viz., the appellants, seeking their reinstatement and back benefits. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the appellants in each of the grievance petitions by registered post which were returned with endorsement of Postal authorities "refused". Holding the service good, the learned Labour Court proceeded with the grievance petitions ex parte and allowed the grievance petitions. The applications of the appellant for setting aside ex parte orders were also rejected.
3. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed appeals in this Tribunal. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Wahid Bux, the learned Representative for the respondents contending that the appeals were not maintainable as they are not signed by the appellants, but by their Advocates and furthermore they were presented by the Munshi of the Advocate before this Tribunal. In support, he has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in the case of Gulistan v. Slat, Karachi and others reported in 1982 PLC 1007. Their Lordships have observed that a plain reading of Section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, would show, that the Legislature intended to specify the persons, who are competent either to serve a grievance notice or to file a proceeding under Section 25-A, namely, the worker himself or shop steward or bargaining agent. If the intention of the Legislature would have been to permit a worker to file a grievance petition through an attorney, there was no need of specifying the agents specifically in Section 25-A, namely, a shop steward and a bargaining agent, who can file the petition under the aforesaid section. Their Lordships came to the opinion that a grievance petition filed through an Attorney was not competent. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab in the case of Punjab Transport v. Shafiq Ahmed reported in 1989 PLC 110 has held that the appeal filed by an Advocate would be incompetent."
4. The provisions of Section 37(3), I.R.O., 1969, provide that any aggrieved party aggrieved by a decision given under Section.25-A, I.R.O., 1969 may prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days. The appeal is considered to be continuation of the original proceedings, therefore, the procedure for presentation as provided for the original proceedings would also be applicable to the appeal. Even, in subsection (3) of Section 37, I.R.O., 1969, the aggrieved party alone is entitled to prefer an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the instant case, the appeal is signed by an attorney. The powers given by the appellants to the attorney only authorised him to appear, plead, compromise in the case but did not authorise him to prefer an appeal. As such, the appeals are not maintainable as they are not filed by the aggrieved persons.
5. It appears that the back benefits have also been awarded by the learned Labour Court to the respondents without determining the amount of emoluments/back benefits as no evidence had been led in this respect by the respondents before the learned Labour Court. The parties, therefore, are directed to approach the Labour Court for determination of the quantum of the back bandits/emoluments payable to the respondents in each case.