DECISION ' The appellant was working with the respondent as a bus conductor from 4-11-1968. In 1989 he was dismissed from service after an enquiry, and after settling the preliminaries had filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court.
2. The respondents contended that the grievance notice was never served on them and therefore the petitidn did not lie. The petition came to be dismissed on that ground.
3. There were 3 witnesses examined from the Postal Department namely Siddique Hassan, Nazir Khan Khatak and Arshad Ahmad Siddiqui. The last witness who is an Assistant Superintendent in the Post Office Model Colony, has stated that the letter was despatched on 4-12-1989 not on the 14th of December, 1989 as suggested to him in the cross-examination. He has also stated that the letter had been issued from experimental Post Office No, 953 situated in Malir and not from Saddar Post Office and was delivered to the District Manager, Malir Depot KTC on 7-12-1989.
4. This statement was made on the basis of the addressee's signed receipt which is on the record (the original was seen and returned by the trial Court). It is true that the acknowledgment receipt did not bear any Rubber Stamp mark or the designation of this person receiving it but it is rather strange that such a suggestion was made because it can be accepted even by a peon.
5. In the face of this evidence which was backed up by the original receipt, to disbelieve his evidence only on the ground that the receipt on the record could be read as 14th December also was hardly justified. It is not anybody's case that the addressee was any other person except the District Manager. The normal presumption is that the letter was sent to, and received by him.
6. The evidence of Arshad Ahmed Siddiqui is free from any doubt or bias. I am therefore of the opinion that the grievance notice was in time and was duly served on the respondent. I will therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Labour Court for disposal in accordance with law.