1. ' ABDUL LATIF U. QURESHI, J.---Petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition against the order of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi dated 15-5-1995 thereby setting aside the order of III Sindh Labour Court at Karachi and ordering re-instatement of respondent No, 3 Aziz-urRehman, in service.
2. ' Facts in brief are that on 11-8-1990, respondent No,3 Azizur Rehman, was appointed as a Badli worker against a post of permanent helper. His services were terminated by the petitioner on 14-1- 1991 on the ground that due to joining of the permanent helper who was on leave, his services are no more required. The respondent No,3 gave a grievance notice dated 27-1-1991 to the petitioner on the plea that he being a permanent worker, his services cannot be terminated. The petitioners replied the notice through letter dated 2-2-1991.
3. ' The respondent No,3 approached HI Sindh Labour Court by filing a grievance petition under section 25-A of the IRO, 1969. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that though he was appointed as a Badli worker but as he served for more than three months with the petitioners, he acquired the status of a permanent worker. It was further observed that the reason given in the termination order by the petitioner is vague and is not valid. The trial Court also rejected the petitioner's objection that grievance notice was time-barred by holding that grievance notice was given by the petitioner within the statutory period of two months. However, the grievance petition was dismissed on 14-4-1992 merely on the ground that grievance notice was not signed by the respondent No,3 himself or by a shop steward or by an office-bearer of CBA, as such, it is not a grievance notice under the law.
4. ' Being aggrieved by this order of the Labour Court, the respondent No,3 filed an Appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi.
5. ' The learned Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the lower Court, allowed the appeal and held that grievance notice signed by some body on behalf of the appellant would still be a notice under the law and directed the petitioner to re-instate the respondent No,3 in service within thirty days.
6. ' Pre-admission notice was issued to respondent No,3 Aziz ur Rehman. At the very outset of the arguments it was decided with consent of the parties that as only a short point is involved the matter may be heard and decided finally.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate Tribunal has not given any reason for holding that the grievance notice even if signed by somebody else on behalf of the respondent No,3 can still be a valid legal notice. His main emphasis is that the grievance notice should either be signed by the worker himself or shop steward or an office-bearer of CBA as incorporated in section 25-A of the IRO. Lastly, he argued that the respondent No, 3 was not a permanent worker as during his employment period he has remained absent for some time, as such, there was break in service.
8. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No, 3, worker submitted that it is not mandatorily requirement under section 25-A of the I.R.O. That the grievance notice should be signed by the worker himself or shop steward or an office-bearer of CBA, but the essence of this provision of law is that he himself or other persons nominated under section 25-A of IRO should bring the grievance to the notice of the employer in writing, and that whether such notice is signed by him or not is immaterial. His further contention is that as regards the objection of the petitioner's counsel regarding category of worker whether he was permanent or Badli worker or that notice was time-barred, it cannot be agitated in a Constitution petition as these findings of the Labour Court were not challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Appellate forum. Finally he argued that as the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal has held dismissal of the worker illegal and ordered re- instatement of the respondent No,3 in service, he is also entitled to back benefits.
9. ' Provisions of section 25-A of the IRO, 1969 read as under:-- "25-A. Redress of individual grievances.---(1) 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 collective bargaining agent, within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises.
(2) Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker.
(3) Where a worker brings his grievance to the notice of his employer through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent, the employer shall within seven days of grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the shop steward or, as the case may be, the collective bargaining agent.
(4) If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or, as the case may be, subsection (3), or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or shop steward may take the matter to his collective bargaining agent or the Labour Court or as the case may be, the collective bargaining agent may take the matter to the Labour Court and where the matter is taken to the Labour Court it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matters were in an industrial dispute: ' Provided that a worker who desired to so take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3), as the case may be.
(5) In adjudicating and determining a grievance under subsection (4), the Labour Court shall go into all the facts of the case and pass such orders as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(8) If a decision under subsection (4) or an order under subsection (5) given by the Labour Court or a decision of the Tribunal in an appeal against such a decision or order is not given effect to or complied with within a week or within the period specified in such order or decision, the defaulter shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
(9) No person shall be prosecuted under subsection (8) except on a complaint in writing--
(a) by the workman if the order or decision in his favour is not implemented within the period specified therein, or
(b) by the Labour Court or Tribunal, if an order or decision thereof is not complied with.
(10) For the purposes of this section, workers having common grievance arising out of a common cause of action may make a joint application to the Labour Court."
10. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on case of Syed Muhammad Hussain v. M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (PLD 1980 SC 80) which resolves the two contradictory versions as to who can give grievance notice, held by different High Courts; one arising out from case of Daud Hosiery Mills v.
11. Hazrat Muhammad Yousaf (Writ Petition No,264/75) where His Lordship Mr. Justice Abdul Hayee Qureshi (as he then was) held that the word "himself" must be construed liberally so as to include an agent and that an Advocate can also give grievance notice on behalf of the worker. Contrary view was taken by Labour Appellate Tribunal in case of Hussain Textile Mills v. Muhammad Ishaq (Appeal No, Karachi 440/73). An Appeal against the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal, My Lord Mir Khuda Bakhsh Marri, J. (as he then was) confirmed the view expressed by Labour Appellate Tribunal relying on case of Karachi Union of Employers and others v. The Industrial Court, Karachi and others (PLD 1961 SC 57) where it has been held that word "himself" needs no other interpretation except "workman himself" or through his two other agencies as provided in section 25-A of the IRO but not through an Advocate or other agent. In Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Limited (PLD 1980 SC 80) My Lord Muhammad Haleem, J. (as he then was) supported the view expressed in case of Karachi Union of Employers and others v. The Industrial Court, Karachi, that word "himself" means worker himself only and that the intention of the legislature is to avoid legal quibbles. My Lord has referred to case of Monks v. Jackson 1876 LRCPD 683, Queen v.
12. Mansel Jones (1889) 23 QBD 29 in which implication of word "himself" was considered.
13. ' There is no cavil to the proposition that worker himself or persons nominated under section 25-A of the IRO i,e, shop steward or office-bearer of CBA can give the grievance notice to the employer, but in the instant case position is quite different. It is not the case of the petitioner that notice has not been given by the worker himself but it is not signed by him, and on this instance some body has signed the notice. The essence of section 25-A of the IRO, 1969 is that a worker has to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing himself or through persons empowered under section 25-A of the IRO. In other words it mean that anything in writing sent by the worker himself to the employer to bring his grievance to notice of the employer. Definition of word notice as given in Stroud's Judicial. Dictionary are as:-- "Notice is a direct and definite statement of a thing", "supplying materials from which the existence of such thing may be inferred."
14. ' Thus it would be clear that any communication. Made supplying material from which existence of such thing may be inferred or statement regarding existence of a thing is made, is a proper notice.
15. ' The main purpose of putting signature on a document or notice is that the person who gives notice or authenticates a document should not in future deny the same, and also, the person to whom it is intended should know, as to who has given the statement or notice. A notice even if not signed will still be a notice if it discloses the facts and the person who received the same knows as to who has sent it. In the instant case employer has received the notice knowing fully well as who has sent the notice and the employer petitioner has replied the same. Mere communication of notice in writing, is the requirement of law. In view of this we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that this notice though not signed by the respondent is still a legal grievance notice under section 2-A of the IRO, 1969.
16. ' The other contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that respondent No,3 Aziz ur Rehman is not a permanent worker but a Badli worker and that the grievance notice is time- barred. In this regard the learned Labour Court has clearly given finding that respondent No,3 Aziz ur Rehman was a permanent worker as he had worked for more than three months and his services could not be terminated. In fact these findings of the Labour Court have not been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal, as such, it has become final. Learned Advocate for the respondent No,3 has relied on case of M/s. Metal Containers (Pvt.) 'Limited v. The Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (CPLA No,342-K/91) where his Lordship Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar has held that the finding of the Labour Court not challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, becomes final. In view of this settled position, arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in Constitution petition.
17. ' As regards the question of back benefits Advocate for the respondent No,3 has relied on case of M/s. National Bank of Pakistan v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (1992 PLC 94) where it has been held that "order terminating services of employee having been found to be unlawful, full back benefits should have been allowed to employee.
18. ' Respondent No,3. Aziz ur Rehman in his grievance application has claimed back benefits. But the same was dismissed, and in Appeal the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of Labour Court has not given any finding whether the respondent No,3 is entitled for back benefits or not.
19. ' It is a settled law that the aggrieved worker is not entitled to back benefits in every case of unlawful dismissal. He is entitled to such benefits only if he can prove that during the period of his illegal dismissal he remained jobless and could not earn his livelihood. This fact can only be ascertained by evaluating the evidence produced by the parties before the trial Court. The learned Appellate Tribunal while hearing the appeal must have appreciated the evidence led by both the parties before the trial Court and there is no order/mention of back benefits to the respondent No,3 in its judgment, which amounts that the Appellate Court could not come to the conclusion that the respondent No,3 is entitled for the same. Benefit cannot be awarded to respondent No, 3 Aziz ur Rehman in a Constitution petition filed by the petitioner challenging his reinstatement order.
20. ' In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case which warrant our interference under Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.