DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, I at Karachi dated 25-4-1989, whereby he allowed the grievance petition of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent, that appeal has not been filed by an authorised person. It may be pointed out that the grievance petition was filed against KMC through Director, Medical Services however the appeal has been filed by the KMC through Director Administration. The impugned order which was challenged in the grievance petition was passed by Deputy Director, Medical Services. The appeal was presented by Raees Ahmed, Clerk of Legal Department, KMC.
3. The learned counsel of KMC remained absent on the last date of hearing as well as today upto 10-50 a.m. Raees Ahmed, Clerk who is present in the Court admitted that he has no authority. This Tribunal has time and again been holding that appeal has to be presented by the aggrieved party and not by an Advocate or Agent on his behalf. Reference may be made to decisions of this Tribunal in the cases reported in 1989 PLC 175, 1989 PLC 176 and 1989 PLC 262 and also unreported decisions in Appeal No, SUK-265 of 1989, SUK-266 of 1989 and KAR-43 of 1990. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naeem Iqbal Khan v. Fuji Colour Pakistan Laboratory and others 1988 SCMR 1089 wherein their Lordships upheld the order of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal of the respondent on the ground that it was not presented by duly authorised person.
4. It may also be pointed out, as stated by Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the respondent filed a complaint under subsection (8) of section 25-A against the Director Medical Services before the learned Labour Court where the matter was compromised. He has produced 'Application for withdrawal of complaint' which shows that the respondent in that case viz. Appellant had compromised the matter and made full payment of back benefits therefore had withdrawn the complaint.
5. In view of the above the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable because it is not presented by aggrieved person.