DECISION ' This appeal calls in question the order of the IVth Labour Court whereby the petition filed under section 25-A, IRO came to be dismissed. Briefly stated it arose in the following circumstances:- ' The petitioner was appointed as a Crane Operator on 25-5-1983 which was in Group IV. However the anomaly about which he clamoured was removed and he was put in Pay Group-V on 5-12- 1988 with effect from 1983 but sans arrears. In 1991 he was promoted to pay Group VI with effect from 1983. This time again he was denied the arrears.
2. He had given grievance notice on 1-10-1991 which was not replied too. The petition before the Labour Court, as a result has followed.
3. It came to be resisted on the ground that it was barred by res judicata as an earlier application of 1990 which was in regard to the recovery of arrears had been dismissed. It was contended that there was no grievance notice which was a condition precedent for the petition. Further as the grievance petition was not based on law, settlement or award the same was liable to be thrown out.
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Muhammad Sharif, Assistant Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. The Labour Court found that the service of the grievance notice was not proved and that the demand of the petitioner was not covered by any settlement. On the other hand the settlement effective from 23-4-1990 to 22-4-1992 explicitly mentioned that no arrears will be paid. As for the plea of res judicata it was found that the plea in respect of the pay of Group VI was not barred by res judicata.
6. On the showing of the appellant himself the grievance petition had not been sent by post. The appellant states to have handed it over to the Receiving Clerk of the Metallurgical Department who had given him some Inward number. The respondent had explicitly denied the service of the notice.
The appellant therefore owed it to himself to substantiate the receipt of the notice by the respondent by summoning the Receiving Clerk or at least the Inward Register. He had not done that. We are just left guessing about the identity of the Receiving Clerk. So it cannot be said, as was found by the learned Presiding Officer that the notice was served on the appellant. This is enough to dispose of the appeal.
7. A word might however be said about the basis of the claim. The appellant bases his claim under the settlement of 1982. The Memorandums on the record as detailed by the Labour Court are on the record, and are very clear that there will be no payment of arrears. Similarly there is also the circular also to that effect. Even the settlement have not been put on the I record or proved by the appellant. However it was so done by the learned counsel for the respondent in regard to the settlement of 1992 wherein it was settled that no arrears were to be paid. So there was nothing otherwise too, to advance the case of the appellant.
' In the result the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.