1. ' MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI; J.---By short orders dated 22-5-1991 C.P. No, D-1121/86, C.P. No,D- 252/90 and C.P. No,D-388/90 were allowed. Following are the reasons for the same.
2. ' The above three petitions are directed against the decisions dated 15-2-1988, 10-3-1990 and 7-4- 1990 respectively passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal in the respective appeals filed by the petitioners that were dismissed. The said appeals were not presented by the appellants themselves, but by their respective Advocates, agents or authorised persons or attorneys. And, therefore, were held to be non-maintainable, the learned Tribunal being of the view that the appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is to be filed by the aggrieved person himself.
3. ' Since the question to be decided is purely of law, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the cases.
4. ' However, so far as C.P. No, D-1121/86 is concerned, the learned Tribunal after holding that the appeal filed was not competent, cursorily dealt with merits of the case without considering the points in issue.
5. ' We have heard M/s. Ali Amjid, Khursheed Anwar and M.L. Shahani, the learned counsel for the petitioners and M/s. Sharif Khatak and Ahsanul Haq Siddiqui for the respondents.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the view taken by the learned Appellate Tribunal is misconceived. Their submission is that appeal filed by the Advocate or agent of an aggrieved party is maintainable. Reliance is placed on section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which reads as under:-- "37(3).
7. (1)
8. (2)
(3) Any party aggrieved by an award given under subsection (1) or a decision given under section 25-A or section 34 or a sentence passed under clause (c) of subsection (5) of section 35 may prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the delivery or passing thereof and the decision of the Tribunal in such appeal shall be final."
9. ' The reading of subsection (3) of section 37 does not specifically. Provide that an aggrieved party shall prefer an appeal in person. Aforesaid subsection (3) of section 37 is to be seen in juxtaposition of the provisions of section 25-A of the said Ordinance which specifically provides that the worker may bring his grievance to the notice of the employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent and subsection (2) thereof provides that where a worker himself bring his grievance to the employer, the employer shall 'communicate his decision. The word 'himself, however, is not used in subsection (4) of section 25-A and so also in subsection (3) of section 37 of the said Ordinance. The legislation with purpose has avoided the use of word 'himself in section 37(3) leaving it open to the person aggrieved to file an appeal either himself or through agent. The legislature has not put any distinction on the aggrieved party to present or prefer the appeal himself and not otherwise. Where the legislature has so intended, it has specifically provided for it.
10. ' It is a cardinal rule of construction of statute that the intention of legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used. A construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided.No doubt the said rule is subject to exception, that in so far as the provision under consideration is concerned, the plain and explicit language thereof does not permit, to read word "himself' therein.
11. ' A similar question came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court in the case of Managing Director, Lyallpur Cotton Mills v. Labour Appellate Tribunal and two others reported in 1990 PLC 514 wherein it was held that there is no condition precedent that appeal filed under section 37(3) of the said Ordinance is to be signed by the party itself and it was further held that the provisions of Order III, C.P.C. Can be pressed into service for presentation and signing of appeals under the said Ordinance.
12. ' We are in respectful agreement with the vie v expressed in the aforesaid report to the extent that it is not the requirement of law that the appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal is to be preferred only by the aggrieved party itself or himself, as the case may be, and that such an appeal can be filed by aggrieved party itself or through an agent as provided under Order III, through a duly authorised agent or attorney.
13. ' Therefore, the appeals filed by the petitioners through their Advocates whose authority was placed before the Labour Appellate Tribunal to do so, were to be treated as validly filed and were maintainable.
14. ' In the case of Mst. Karam Nisham v. Mehrban Ali Shah (PLD 1959 Lah. 946) Kaikaus, J. Observed as under:-- "A plaint has to be signed and verified. Yet it has never been held that the failure to sign or verify the plaint is fatal as long as the suit was in fact instituted according to the instructions of the plaintiff."
15. The authorities are abundant on the proposition that the object of the provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 4 and Order XLI, rule 1 is that a suit or an appeal should be presented by a person who is duly authorised in that behalf. An appeal filed without the appellant's signatue on the memo. Of appeal, an 0 on the Vakalatnama of his counsel amounts to an irregularity which can be cured by law.
16. Reference may be made to the case of Shabbir Ahmad. And 4 others v. Razia Begum and 3 others (1981 SCMR 687), Muhammad Masroor v. Abdul Ghani (1980 CLC 946) and Shade Muhammad Khan v. Kamoon and two others (1989 MLD 4624). Defects in the pleadings, application, memorandum of appeal, with regard to presentation, signing and verlicatiou arc technical irregularities relating to the matter of procedure, cannot furnish basis for rejection of plaint, application or memorandum of appeal. Such mistakes or defects can be rectified at any stage of the proceedings. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Toor Gul v. Mumtaz Begm PLD 1972 SC 9, M/s. Nabi Bakhsh & Sons v. Pakistan PLD 1969 SC 210, Muhammad Sarwar v. Abdul Ghani and others (1980 CLC 946) and Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Sharif (PLD 1990 Lah. 208).
17. ' The learned Advocate for the private respondents in C.P. No, D388/90 conceded to the legal position that the appeal filed through the authorised representative before the Tribunal was competent.
18. ' Mr. Muhammad Sharif Khatak, Advocate for respondent No,1 in Petition No,D-252/90 raised the issue that the petitioner has been approbating and reprobating in the same breath and therefor the petition should be dismissed.
19. Since there is a chequered history of litigation between the parties and the learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on an unwarranted ground, without considering the merits of the case, therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to consider the said submission, which will necessarily entail reappraisal of evidence. Such plea, if available to respondent No,1 may be raised before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
20. ' The above decisions of the learned Sindh Appellate Tribunal arc, therefore, declared as illegal and without lawful authority. The above cases are, therefore, remanded to the Sindh Appellate Tribunal for disposal on merits by 31-8-1991.