DECISION ' These three appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Presiding Officer, IVth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 7-7-1990, whereby the grievance petitions of all the three appellants were rejected by separate orders but which contain the same substance. As the respondents of these appeals are same and the points of law and facts in all the three appeals are similar, therefore, I will dispose of them by this single decision.
2. Briefly the facts are, that the appellants were admittedly workmen employed by the respondents.
Their services were terminated by the order of the respondents dated 16-5-1989 on the ground, that their services were no more required. They sent grievance notices which, according to the appellants remained inadvertently unsigned by them. The respondents rejected the grievance notices vide their letter dated 10-7-1989. The appellants accepting that their grievance notices were unsigned and not valid under the law, again repeated grievance notices on 23-7-1989 duly signed by the appellants. Failing to get the reply or redress, the appellants filed grievance petitions before the Labour Court on 5-10-1989. The learned Labour Court rejected the petitions mainly on the ground that the second grievance notices were also unsigned and petitions were time-barred.
3. I have heard Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, learned Advocate for the appellants and Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The learned Labour Court has held, that the grievance notices were not signed and as such were not grievance notices in the eyes of law. In this regard the learned Labour Court has relied upon certain authorities. The first grievance notices were sent on 6-7-1989 which were replied to by the respondents on 10-7-1989 and which were admittedly unsigned as such as held by the learned Labour Court same would not be grievance notices in the eye of law. Thus the appellants were well within their rights to give another valid grievance notice if the same was within the period specified in section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 which is three months. Second grievance notices were sent on 23- 7-1989 whereas the impugned orders of termination of services of appellants were passed on 16- 5-1989. As such these grievance notices were within the period of three months and cannot be considered as time-barred on that account.
5. However, the learned Labour Court has also held, that the second grievance notices were also unsigned and has counted the period of limitation for filing grievance petitions from the date of the first grievance notices which were replied to by the respondent on 10-7-1989. The grievance petitions were filed on 5-10-1989, whereas the period for filing the grievance petitions under subsection (3) of section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1%9 would be two months from he date of receipt of reply.
6. In para. 11 of the grievance petition the appellants have averred that they again sent grievance notices which were received by respondents on 29-7-1989, which averment is accepted by the respondents in para. 10 of their reply statement. However Mr. Latif Saghar submitted in this Tribunal, that no second grievance notices were served by them. It may be pointed that the respondents did not examine any witness before the learned Labour Court. Mr. Latif Saghar submits, that para. 10 of the reply statement if read as a whole would indicate, that the respondents did not accept the receipt of the second grievance notices. It may be pertinent to reproduce the para. 11 of the gievance petition as well as para. 10 of the reply statement in order to appreciate the arguments raised by Mr. Latif Saghar.
Grievance petition.
' Para 11. That applicant then served on respondent his grievance notice under section 25-A (1) of I.R.O., 1969 by registered letter No, received by respondent on 29-7-1989 which was not replied which is Annexure "D" (A/D slip)".
Reply Statement.
"Para 10. That the contents of para. 11 are accepted but the same being not in accordance with the requirements of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 was not replied as the same is not envisaged by the said provisions of law. The first grievance notice received on 6-7-1989 has to be taken into consideration and which being illegal, inadmissible, the limitation started running from the date."
' From the bare reading of the above pleadings of the parties it would be clear that the factum of the receipt of second grievance notices was accepted by the respondents. This oral argument of Mr. Latif Saghar at this stage has got no force and cannot be accepted.
7. Next question for consideration is whether the second grievance notices were signed or unsigned. The copies of the grievance notices annexed by the appellants as Annexure `B' with their grievance petitions, admittedly do not bear their signatures. The copies of the grievance notices have also been produced by the respondents as Annexure 'R' to their reply' statements alongwith the envelope which shows that it was received by them on 6-7-1989. These copies also admittedly do not bear the signatures of the appellants. The, grievance notices that were sent on 23-7-1989 would not have reached the respondents three weeks before their despatch. The appellants alongwith copy of the grievance notices also produced A/D receipt in the cases of Fazlur Rehman and Ayam Khan and postal receipt in the case of Shah Rome. A/D receipts show the letter was despatched on 23-7-1989 which was received by respondents on 29-7-1989, which also supports the conclusion, that the second grievance notices were sent =by the appellants and were received by the respondents. 1 have already held that the plea of the respondents at this stage that the second grievance notices were not received by them was not tenable in view of their reply statement. In the cross-examination Fazlur Rehman has admitted that the contents of Annexure `D' producted by them is same as Annexure 'W. The mere fact that the contents of both the documents are same would not necessarily mean that Annexure 'R' is a copy of Annexure D' A specially in view of the fact that admittedly second grievance notices were also received by the respondents. The appellants also admit that they had only sent this one notice. The appellants are illiterate workers and have so stated presumably in view of the fact, that their signatures were taken only once on the grievance notice. The failure of the respondents to produce the original grievance notices received by them on 29-7-1989, would raise presumption against them. The mere fact that the copies of the grievance notices were unsigned would not raise presumptions that originals were also not signed, specially in view of the fact, that the originals were not produced by the respondents though received by them. There is no provision of law which requires the copy of the grievanCe notice to be signed.
8.. It is not fair and just to hold that the first unsigned grievance notice was not grievance notice in the eye of law and at the same time calculate the period of limitation from the reply of the such grievance notice. The period of limitation would in fact, run from the date of second grievance notices which were legal and proper which were received on 29-7-1989 and remained unreplied.
The period of limitation for filing grievance petitions would be 2-1/2 months from the date receipt. If this date is taken into consideration, the grievance petitions would be within time.
9. In view of these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits. Mr. Latif Saghar submitted that the respondents did not produce any witness because they relied upon the admission of the appellants in cross- examination with regard to the legal points and limitation. It will be just and proper that they may also be given chance to produce the evidence and if the appellants find necessary they may be allowed to produce evidence in rebuttal. If the respondents produce the original grievance notices dated 23-7-1989, received by the respondents on 29-7-1989 it will be open to the learned Labour Court to decide whether the grievance notices were. Signed or unsigned and the legal C consequence if the notices are unsigned.