DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, dated May 3, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered that because of non- compliance of Standing Order l2 i9i of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance), the respondent be re-instated in service with full back benefits. Several attempts were made to serve the respondent on the address given by him before the learned Labour Court, but he could not be served. A substituted service has been effected. The short point that requires consideration is as to whether an individual workman can raise fresh grievance, which he had not raised in his grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (hereinafter called the Ordinance). In this connection, reference may be made to subsection (1) of section 25-A of the Ordinance, which reads as under: "A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his Shop Steward or trade union, within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises."
2. It would appear from the said subsection (1) of section 25-A of the Ordinance that an individual has to bring his grievance to the notice of the employer within three months. The implication is that if he does not bringj his grievance to the notice of the employer, he will lose his right under.,* section 25-A of the Ordinance. The underlying object under section 25-AJ of the Ordinance is that an opportunity should be given to the employer to redress the grievance of the individual workman. It is only in case it does not redress the grievance of the individual workman, the latter, if he so desires, can go to the Junior Labour Court.
3. In the present case, the respondent Lal Mohammad stated in his cross-examination that: "The representation to the respondents was received by Mohammad Ahmad the Cashier and signed by him which I produce as Exh. R-l."
4. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that: ".. the applicant was confronted in his cross-examination with two applications Exhs. R-l and R-2. He stated that Exh. R-l was the representation he had made to the respondents, which was received by their Cashier Mohammad Ahmed, and was signed by him. It does bear the signature in English of some person. Now, the fact that Exh. R-l, as well as Exh. R-2, have come from the possession of the respondents corroborates the assertion of the applicant that he had delivered Exh. R-l to the respondents. The respondents have not examined their Cashier to rebut the statement of the applicant, nor have they explained as to how these documents, came into their possession, if not delivered to them by the applicant. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the applicant had followed the procedure laid down in section 25-A."
5. A perusal of Exh. R-l would disclose that the respondent had only prayed for payment of his dues and not for re-instatement. The following portion runs as under: "I, therefore, appeal to your honour to kindly direct the said factory management to settle my accounts in full (inclusive 4 hours daily overtime at double rates) for the last 14 months, notice pay and service gratuity and bonus. The Management have not paid me earned wages so far.** Pakistan 1 abour Cases 6. 198There is no prayer for re-instatement in the grievance notice. I am of the view that the intention of the Legislature in framing section 25-A of the Ordinance is two-fold. Firstly, an opportunity should be given to the employer himself to redress the grievance of the individual workman expeditiously, and (2) that it is only in case of failure on the part of the employer to redress the grievance of the workman that the latter, if he so B desires, can approach the Junior Labour Court for redress for his grievance. The first object cannot be achieved unless the grievance notice contained the grievance of the workman. The respondent had not made any grievance for his re-instatement. 7.
The question no v is whether any payment is due to the respondent. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent was paid Rs. 300.00 in full and final payment of his dues. A Receipt for Rs. 300.00 was produced by the respondent who in cross-examination stated as under: "I see the receipt for the amount of Rs. 300.00 which was received by me and I produce that receipt as Exh. R-4."
8. A perusal of Exh. R-4, would disclose that the respondent had received Rs. 300.00 in full and final settlement of his accounts. The learned Labour Court on a mere surmise came to the conclusion that the respondent did not receive Rs. 300.00 in full and final settlement. All that the leamed Labour Court observed was that had the applicant (respondent before me) received Rs.
300.00 in full and final settlement of his dues, he would not have made representation to the respondent. This is a mere surmise, which cannot be accepted in the face of the documentary evidence, which the respondent himself had produced. I would hold that the respondent had been paid all his dues in full and final settlement of his claim.
9. For the reasons given above, the award of the learned Labour Court is set aside.