DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,1 at Karachi, dated 21-9-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Jobber by the respondents on 10-5-1974. It is alleged that his services were terminated on 19-6-1986 without any order, in writing. After serving grievance notice upon the respondents, he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the work of the appellant as a Jobber was of a supervisory nature, therefore, he was not a workman. It has further been stated that the services of the appellant were terminated on 1-10-1985 on account of resignation and thereafter he worked as Contractor with the respondents. It has also been contended that the grievance notice as well as the grievance petition was time-barred.
3. I have heard Mr. Ibne Ayub, learned representative for the appellants and Mr. Itrat Puri, learned Advocate for the respondents.
4. It has been pointed by the learned Labour Court, that the grievance petition was not presented by the appellant himself in the Court, but, was presented by his representative, Mr. Ibne Ayub. I also find a note on the grievance petition that it was presented by Mr. Ibne Ayub, representative in the absence of the petitioner. Mr.Ibne Ayub states that the appellant was present with him when he presented the petition. However, I find that even in the Memo of appeal this fact has not been asserted nor any affidavit has been filed by the appellant asserting that he was present in person at the time of presentation. Mr. Ibne Ayub admittedly is not a Shop Steward, but, he is General Secretary of Hussain Textile Mills Labour Union which is not the C.B.A. However, he cannot be considered as Shop Steward as defined under section 23 of I.R.O., 1969.
5. Under section 25-A(1), the grievance may be brought to the notice of the employer by the workman himself or through the Shop Steward or the C.B.A. Under subsection (4), the worker or Shop Steward may take the matter to the Labour Court. Though word 'himself has not been used in subsection (4), but, it will not be a proper interpretation of the Statute to say that the notice has to be given by the workman himself, whereas grievance petition can be presented by any body else on behalf of the workman. In the case of Syed Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Reported in PLD 1980 SC 80; their Lordships, while examining the word `himself have observed, as under:- 'The legislative intent seems to be to avoid interference by any other outside agency. It would appear from the scheme of the legislation that the appearance through legal practitioners is restricted and wherever he is eligible to appear it has been so enacted. Section 49 of the Ordinance makes this intent obvious and in this view of the matter it would be anomalous to introduce the concept of agency in the word 'himself for :n that eventuality the object of the law can easily be defeated."
6. The fact that the appellant himself did not present the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court would amount that the grievance petition was taken to the Labour Court by the agent which procedure is not warranted by law. The grievance petition was thus not maintainable.
Consequently the appeal is dismissed.