' The appeal is directed against the decision dated 14-6-1993, rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, at Multan, accepting the grievance petition, filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Basharat Ahmad, whose services as Labour Officer were terminated with effect from 17-4-1984. Following are the facts, but it may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the appeal, Basharat Ahmad unfortunately expired, and he was replaced by his legal heirs, widow, three daughters and two sons.
2. Basharat Ahmad was recruited on 31-10-1982 as in charge-time office and was confirmed on 30- 4-1983. Thereafter, he became P.A. To the General Manager, with effect from 1-6-1983. The Assistant Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan asked the management of the Ghazi Textile Mills Ltd., D.G. Khan, to change his assignment, but instead of doing that, the management terminated his services with effect, from 17-4-1984. Later on, there was a correspondence between the mill management and the learned Commissioner, D.G. Khan Division, on the subject. The stand taken up by the management was that Basharat Ahmad was working against the interests of the establishment, disclosed its secrets and his conduct amounted to corruption on his part. Basharat Ahmad maintained that he had fallen prey to religious prejudice and there was nothing materially against him and he, therefore, deserved his reinstatement in service, with all the back benefits, including costs of the litigation.
3. In the course of his service, Basharat Ahmad was once appointed as Labour Officer and the stand point taken up by the establishment was that it carried pay of Rs,5,000 per month, and the employee as such could not be treated as a workman, entitled to protection of labour laws, to be enforced through the competent Labour Court. It was also maintained that having received the total amount, due to him, and accepted the post of Labour Officer, in supersession of the post of P.A., Bashkat Ahmad had in fact waived all his grievances, if any, against the establishment. This plea of the mill management prevailed with the Labour Court, and Basharat Ahmad's grievance petition was dismissed, as being based on no sound premises. When Basharat Ahmad, however, went in appeal, he Was successful and this Tribunal remanded the case to the Labour Court for re- decision, particularly of the question of waiver. The learned Labour Court passed a fresh order on 14-6-1993, accepting Basharat Ahmad's grievance petition, and setting aside the order dated 17-4- 1983, terminating his services. He was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits, minus, of course, the dues he had already received from the mill management as Labour Officer. It was observed that for creating good relationship between the parties they would bear their respective costs of the litigation.
4. The question of waiver has come under consideration of the Labour Court in an objective way, I must say. It has been said that waiver is either by words or by conduct and that there is no evidence about Basharat Ahmad having waived his grievance by words. Similarly, it was pronounced, waiver by conduct was not proved against him, as had he intended to do so, he would not have pressed his grievance petition and the management should have insisted upon its withdrawal, before re-employing Basharat Ahmad as Labour Officer. If there was a compromise between the parties, it was couched in no concrete terms but was vague, with the result that Basharat Ahmad's grievance petition remained pending throughout, and it was not relied back.
5. Basharat Ahmad's grade as In charge-time-office was Rs,400--35-- 750/50--1,000, and he drew Grade-8 as P.A. When however, subsequently he was promoted as Labour Officer, his monthly salary was enhanced to Rs,5,000. It was rightly observed by the learned lower Court that if his activities amounted to corrupt practices or mal-practices on his part, it did warrant a probe and a regular enquiry. The management did not serve on him any show-cause notice and did not communicate to him any reason for his dismissal from service as P.A. Even if as ' Alimadi' his activities were considered to be prejudicial to- good order, or dangerous for the mill management, he should have been charge-sheeted and made to face an enquiry. But such requisite formalities were dispensed with, and the establishment just terminated his services, which order was held, and rightly so, to be unsustainable in law. Actually, it appeared, religious prejudices have worked against him and the same resulted in his dismissal from service. It would be a stupid plea to urge that the grievance notice served by Basharat Ahmad on the management was drafted by an Advocate and this could not be treated as a valid notice. If such notice could emanate from the aggrieved person, there was no reason why an Advocate could not draft it or send it or address it to the establishment on behalf of the aggrieved officer. It is, at the same time, not necessary that a grievance notice should contain all the averments and allegations which subsequently the grievance petition has to embody. There is no such requirement in law.
6. The argument advanced by the Labour Court in holding late Basharat Ahmad not to have waived his rights, or slept over his grievances, must be taken to be well-based, for the reason, that he did not during his lifetime expressly waive his rights and did adhere to his entitlement to claim his reinstatement in service with back benefits. Even though he had accepted fresh appointment as Labour Officer, with the same establishment, that did not imply ipso facto that he had no claim against the establishment as regards his reinstatement in service throughout or his claim to back benefits as P.A. Had he intended to do so, he could clearly express himself before the Labour Court, or before the establishment, with or without the intervention of the Labour Court, that he was withdrawing his grievance petition and giving up his claim to all dues accruable to him as P.A., continuing to be P.A. Incessantly in service of the Ghazi Textile Mills, with no break. Since he did not signify his intention to waive his right to continuity in service, or to his dues as P.A., either by words or by conduct, he was rightly held by the Labour Court to have entitlement to that, in spite of the fact that the establishment had taken him on its rolls, in promoted capacity as Labour Officer, with higher status and salary. I do not find any wrong with the conclusion drawn by the Labour Court and would endorse it in toto. The appeal preferred by the management against the decision of Labour Court is devoid of force and is hereby dismissed with costs.
7. Dues shall be calculated by the mill management and paid to the unfortunate legal heirs of Basharat Ahmad deceased, who have by all means right to receive the same, now that Basharat Ahmad is no longer alive, in service of the establishment.