1. DECISION This is an appeal against an order dated 29-5-1973 of Junior Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dismissing application of the appellant under section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969.
2. The applicant-appellant filed an application for re-instatement in service with back benefits, alleging that the appellant was Assistant Operator of the respondent, for the last 2 years. The appellant applied for leave with effect from 13-11-1972. The application for leave was sent to the, respondent through Printing Master who was his immediate superior. On 23-11-1973 he sent an-- other application for extension of leave through General Secretary of Collective Bargaining Agent.
3. The appellant returned back from his native place where he had gone on leave but he was not allowed to resume his duty on 30-11-1972 He made grievance to the employer by letter to which he was informed that he had been charge-sheeted for remaining absent from 13-11-1972 to 30- 11.-1972. Ultimately the appellant was dismissed on 8-2-1973. Against the dismissal order he filed an application under section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969 before V-Junior Labour Court, which dismissed it.
4. Being aggrieved with the order of the V-Junior Labour Court he has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court has dismissed application under section 25-A of I. R. O. 1969 on to-fold grounds, viz., (a) the applicant-appellant has failed to follow the mandatory procedure under section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969 and (b) on merits of the case.
6. First I deal with the port of failure to follow mandatory procedure provided under section 25 of I. R.
7. O. Mr. Ali Amjad, representative of the appellant relies on subsection (6) of section 25-A but not subsection (4). If an individual worker seeks his remedy before a Junior Labour Court under subsection (4) of section 25-A of I. R. O. 1969 in respect to his any right; guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settle--ment, grievance procedure laid down in subsections (1), (2) and (3) is a must and a condition precedent. But if he comes under subsection
(6) of section 25-A, procedure enunciated in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 25-A is not necessary. It is useful to reproduce subsection (6) of section 25-A of lf. R. O. 1969 below :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) to (4) any worker aggrieved by the termination of his employment as a result of retrench--ment, dismissal, discharge lay of, lock-out, or otherwise not earlier than to months preceding the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, may within a period of to months from the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amend--ment) Act. 1973, or the termination of the employment, whichever is later, either himself or through his shop steward or Trade Union, take the matter directly to a Junior Labour Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the establishment is situated."
8. Expression "Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) to (4)" in subsection (6) is to exclude provisions of subsections (1) to (4). The clear effect of these words is to exclude provisions of subsections (1) to (4) and, therefore, grievance procedure under subsections (L) to (4) is not mandatory for a workman who is aggrieved by the termination of his employment as a result of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, etc. And whose case falls within purview of subsection (6) of section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969. Now I come to the second point, viz., merits of the case. Main charge against him during domestic enquiry was that the appellant remained absent from has duties from 18-10-1972 to 30-I 1-1972 without leave. The learned lower Court has discussed the evidence on record in detail. The Domestic Enquiry Officer has given his findings that the appellant remained absent without permission for more than 10 days. It is admitted by the appellant that he remained absent from duty. He admits it in cross-examination that he was not attending the mill due to general strike with effect from 13-10-1972 to 29-11-1972. It is further admitted by him that the general strike ended on 13-11-1972. He that he wrote application for leave but gave it to the Union to be passed on to the Mill Manager further admits it. According to S. O. 8 (2) a workman who desires to obtain leave shall apply to the employer. Instead of applying to employer, he gave leave application to the Union and went away to his native place without prior sanction. He has examined himself and Amanullah. Their evidence is discrepant on material facts. On the other hand, there as evidence of Aftab Ahmed, Mohd. Abdul Sattar and Mohd Ashaq Khan. Enquiry Officer Mr. Abdul Haq Khan has been examined before the lower Court. His evidence has not been attacked. Not a single question was put to him that he was prejudiced against him o the proceedings held before him were in violation of principles of natural B justice. I find that he acted in fair and impartial manner and he allowed full opportunity to appellant to defend his case. His conduct appears above board and impartial. I cannot interfere with his findings. I cannot sit as Court of appeal on his findings.
9. For these brief reasons, therefore, the order of the learned lower Court is maintained. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.