DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No: VI at Hyderabad, dated 25-3-1987; whereby the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. Raes Mushtaq, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Bashir Awan, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was a workman employed with the appellants. The grievance of the respondent is that his services were terminated orally on 1-8-1986, without assigning any reasons and therefore, he served a grievance notice which was not replied by the appellants. He consequently filed grievance petition which was resisted by the appellants on the ground that no grievance notice was received by them and that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service.
4. The appellants have produced the alleged resignation of the respondent as Exh. R-1. The respondent had denied his signatures on this application and had also denied that he had given any resignation. As such, the burden shifted upon the appellants to prove that the signature on this alleged resignation was that of the respondent. The appellants have neither examined any person who A stated that the respondent had signed the resignation application in his presence nor they got the disputed signatures examined by any handwriting expert. Furthermore, though in the first instance the appellants had denied the receipt of any grievance notice from the respondents, but, subsequently their witness, Mr. Ikramuddin, Factory Manager had admitted the receipt of the grievance notice and further admitted that they did not consider it necessary to reply to that notice. It may be pointed that the grievance notice was given by the respondent on 6-8-1986 viz. Within about 5 days of the termination of services. The failure of the appellants to assert that the respondent had tendered his resignation would also go in favour of the contention of the respondent that he did not tender any resignation and that the resignation did not bear his signature.
5. Similarly the respondent denies to have received the letter intimating him that his resignation had been accepted which has been produced as Exh. R-2 alongwith the Postal A/D receipt Exh. R-3.
Under such circumstances the burden again shifted upon the appellants to prove the service of this letter Exh. R-2 by either examining the Postman or by getting the signatures on the postal receipt Exh. R-3 compared by some handwriting expert. In the absence of such proof, the burden of proof that this letter was served upon the respondent would not be deemed to be discharged by the appellants and, therefore, the inference would have to be drawn against them.
6. As pointed above, the appellants had denied the receipt of the notice, but, subsequently, after the Postman was examined by the respondent, the witness of the appellants had admitted the receipt of the notice. The copy of the notice produced by the respondent alongwith his grievance application admittedly does not bear the signatures of the respondent. The contention of Mr. Raes Mushtaq, the learned Advocate for the appellants, therefore, is that such notice is invalid. He has relied upon a decision of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab in the case of Muhammad Din v.
Heavy Foundry and Forge Limited, Taxila reported in 1980 PLC 1983; wherein unsigned application was held, not to be treated as a grievance notice. Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the respondent has, however, relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hashim reported in 1981 PLC 55. In that case it was held that grievance notice did not essentially require under law to be signed by aggrieved workman and failure of workman to sign grievance notice, at best was mere irregularity and did not invalidate or vitiate notice. In this connection, I may also refer to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Toor Gul v. Mst. Mumtaz Begum, reported in PLD 1972 SC 9. It was a case of omission of name of pleader from the body of Vakalatnama. Their Lordships held that the accidental omission of the name of the pleader from the body of the Vakalatnama was a mere irregularity and it would be too technical to hold that the Vakalatnama was not valid merely on this account. It may also be pointed that it was not necessary for the worker to sign copy of the grievance notice which has been produced in this case. The original copy of the notice was admittedly received by the appellants who have not produced the same to show whether it was signed or not signed by the respondent. Under the circumstances, this objection of the learned counsel for the appellants has no force.
7. Considering all the facts discussed above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.