DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The appellant was working as a Booking Supervisor in the service of the respondent since 16th October, 1972. However, on 9th July 1975 and 14th July, 1975 he received show-cause notices charging him for committing some irregularities. The appellant submitted the replies. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Two more charge-sheets dated 29th July, 1975 and 31st July, 1975 were also issued. Inquiry was held and the appellant was found guilty. Consequently, he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this, he served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court dismissed the application on the main ground that grievance notice as required by section 25-A, I.
R. O. was not served. It was held that even it was a grievance notice, it was premature.
4. It is an admitted position that the application under section 25-A, I. R. O. was filed in the Labour Court on :4th November, 1975 but it was mentioned nowhere that the copy of the grievance notice was served. In the written statement a plea was taken that without the service of the grievance notice the application was not maintainable. Still no attempt was made to produce the grievance notice, if it was at all served. It was for the first time on 14th April, 1976 when the appellant was examined, he produced a photostat copy of a receipt issued by one, Syed Natique Hussain Shah who was an employee of the respondent. In this notice it was mentioned that the appellant had delivered an envelope sealed cover which contained one letter and grievance notice under section 25-A, I. R. O. Mr. Natique Hussain Shah was examined in the Labour Court and, although, he admitted that he had issued the receipt but he stated that the words, "and a notice under section 25-A. I. R. O.", were not written by him and were not in handwriting; but the same were subsequently fabricated by the appellant himself. Thus it is a clear case of forgery having committed to meet the plea raised on behalf of the appellant. I have compared the writings in the photostat copy produced in the Labour Court and I am of the view that the aforesaid words differ from the other writing. I asked the learned counsel to produce the original receipt before me but he failed to produce it. Even the appellant was present at the time of hearing this appeal, No such receipt was available in the papers with them. It is also strange that the original receipt was not produced in the Labour Court but only Photo--stat copy was produced. This was with the clear intention to suppress forgery which was committed.
5. In this view I am supported by the fact that according to rules there was a provision for appeal and actually an appeal had been filed and therefore, the question of service of notice under section 25-A, I. R. 4. did not arise till the disposal of the appeal. So there can be no manner of doubt that grievance notice was not served and the words were subsequently fabricated by the appellant.