' This is an appeal under section 37(3), of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Bashir Ahmed was posted as Manager in the appellant's Muhammad Bin Qasim Park Branch at Sukkur during 1993-1994. He was alleged to have mis-appropriated an amount of Rs. 8,00,000. An explanation was sought from him by the appellant Bank through letter, dated 22-5-1996. The respondent submitted its explanation, but after the due date. An enquiry letter dated 4-9-1996 was, however, issued to the respondent to participate in the enquiry. The said enquiry was completed and its report was submitted to the authority concerned on 17-9-1997. The authority concerned, on receipt of the said report, passed an order dismissing the respondent from service of the Bank w,e,f, 24-12-1997. The respondent = filed a departmental appeal on 29-12-1997 which was rejected by the Secretary, Disciplinary Action Committee of the Bank by letter dated 12- 1-1998. The said letter, rejecting the appeal, was sent and delivered to the respondent on his local address as well as village address on 15-1-1998 and 20-1-1998 respectively. A grievance application was filed in the Labour Court No,VII at Sukkur on 24-4-1998 claiming reinstatement with back benefits, under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The respondent examined himself and closed his side. Whereas Niaz Ahmed Sheikh and Irshad Ahmed Soomro, the Enquiry Officer, were examined as witnesses on behalf of the appellant Bank.
3. The application was, however, allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, VII, by his order, dated 7th September, 1998, against which appeal has been filed.
4. Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, raised the following submissions in support of appeal:--
(i) No grievance notice, as required under section 25-A (1) of I.R.O., 1969, was served upon the appellant.
(ii) The appellant was Manager of a Branch at Sukkur and so he is not covered by definition clause 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
(iii) Order of dismissal of the respondent was made at Karachi Central Office. It was Labour Court at Karachi, which had the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition. In case, it is held that the Labour Court at Sukkur had jurisdiction, the Sukkur Branch has 12 workers only and, thus, the respondent was not governed by Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
(iv) The grievance petition is time-barred.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record of the case.
6. The first point i,e, the absence of the grievance notice seems to be a vital point. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, candidly conceded before me that if the finding on that issue is against the respondent, he will be out of Court. Mr. Awan further submits that the grievance notice dated 4-4- 1998 was sent to the appellant Bank through T.C.S. Reference is made by him to Annexure 'A' at page 51 of the R&P which appears to be a delivery confirmation, which is unsigned. Even the name and address of the consignee is not there except "V.P.& Secretary." Under column "received by", it is written only "STAMP" with no name or signatures. This document does not inspire confidence that the grievance notice was sent to and received by the appellant. Mr. Faruq Ghani invites my attention to paragraph 11 at page 6 of the grievance application, which, inter alia, states that a notice under section 25-A(i) of I.R.O., 1969 was sent to respondents under "registered post" but no postal receipts were produced. Annexure 'A' is very much there, but it is the alleged delivery confirmation of T.C.S. which has just been referred by me.
7. I am not ready to give any weight to the alleged delivery confirmation, which remains unproved.
It has neither been signed by any officer of the T.C.S. nor any witness was produced to testify the alleged delivery confirmation. It is in fact, a simple typed piece of paper. In this view of the matter, it is held that no grievance notice, as required under section 25-A(1) of I.R.O., 1969 was served on the appellant, which is a condition precedent for filing a grievance petition.
8. It does not, therefore, seem necessary for me to go into the discussion on other points, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, as stated in para. 6 above.
9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the learned Labour Court No,VII, stands set aside.
10. In view of allowing the appeal, Miscellaneous No, 18 of 1998, filed by the respondent. becomes infructuous and stands dismissed.
' Announced in open Court this the 24th day of February, 1999.