DECISION ' Aggrieved by the order, dated 29th November, 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No,IV, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant, Bacha Khan was dismissed, the said Bacha Khan has preferred this appeal. His case, as disclosed in his grievance petition, is that he was employed as permanent worker in the Respondents Mill with effect from 2-5-1992. However, on 28-11-1993 his services were terminated verbally without assigning any reason. Neither any charge-sheet was served on him nor any enquiry was held against him before termination of his services. The appellant served a grievance notice, dated 9-12-1993 on the respondents (Annexure-A-lower Court's file). In their reply, dated 12-12-1993 to the said notice, the respondents denied the termination of appellant's services on 28-11-1993, adding further that the appellant was charge- sheeted on 28-11-1993 for an incident of prior date i,e, 27-11-1993. As he did not turn up for duty consecutively for two days i,e, 28-11-1993 and 29-11-1993, the charge-sheet was sent to him by Registered Post both on his Karachi address and his home address in Sawat. However, the charge- sheet sent on Karachi address was returned undelivered and the Respondents kept waiting for the reply to the charge-sheet sent on his home address.
2. The appellant had denied having received any such charge-sheet. According to him on receipt of the respondent's letter, dated 12-12-1993 he went to the Mill for resuming his duties but he was not allowed by Labour Officer to enter the premises. Therefore, according to him, the said letter as well as the letter, dated 19-12-1993 containing false allegations of the appellant's unauthorized absence and the written order of his dismissal, dated 17-1-1994 were all issued to cover up the illegalities committed by the respondents. The appellant's prayer in his grievance petition was that as he had remained unemployed ever since his dismissal on 28-11-1993, he be reinstated in his job with full back-benefits.
3. In reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents it was vehemently denied by them that appellant's services were terminated verbally on 28-11-1993. As pointed out earlier their stand as per their reply, dated 12th December, 1993 (Annexttre-C) to the grievance notice sent by the appellant was that on the said date, on the contrary the appellant was charge-sheeted for the incident of the previous date i,e, 27-11-1993. The charge-sheet was sent to him by Registered Post but it was returned undelivered. The appellant was also charge-sheeted on 19-12-1993 for unauthorized absence for more than 10 days with effect from 28-11-1993 which amounted to misconduct. Meanwhile Mr. Jameel Aftab was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the appellant was required to appear before him on 2-1-1994 by the letter, dated 19-12-1993. As he failed to turn up for the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed ex parte against him and submitted his report on the basis of evidence recorded during the enquiry. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry the appellant was dismissed from service actually by respondent's letter, dated 17-1-1994.
Thus, the appellant's grievance accrued following the service of the said letter on him. It was thereafter that it became mandatory on his part to give grievance notice to the respondents. But he failed to do so.
4. In support of his case the appellant Bacha Khan filed his own affidavit-in-evidence (Exh. 3) and that of his witness Shah Karim (Exh.4). Both of them were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the opposite party. Mr Karim Yousuf, Factory Manager filed his affidavit-in-evidence on behalf of the Respondents who was also cross-examined by the appellant's learned counsel. The respondents also examined one Badrul Haq Solangi, Assistant Director Labour (Exh.7). The learned Trial Judge framed six Issues but preferred to dispose the case on Issue No,1 which was a legal Issue. It reads as under:-- "Whether the grievance petition is not maintainable as no grievance notice as required under section 25-A, I.R.O. Was served upon the respondents before filing of the present petition which is violative of mandatory provisions."
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties and have also carefully gone through the relevant material in the case file.
6. Opening his arguments the learned counsel of the appellant took a serious exception to the Labour Court's decision based only on one issue, ignoring all other issues which, according to the learned counsel, were equally important. The said issue has been reproduced hereinabove. There can be no two opinions that before approaching the Labour Court in grievance petition it was mandatory for the appellant to have first served grievance notice on the respondent. No doubt, as stated in the grievance petition, the appellant had served grievance notice, dated 9-12-1993 on the respondents (Annexure-A) vide Postal Acknowledgement Receipt, dated 11-12-1993 (Annexure-B) but this notice was issued subsequent to the alleged verbal order of the termination of appellant's services on 28-11-1993. In reply to that notice the respondents promptly denied the appellant's allegation of verbal termination of his services vide their letter, dated 12-12-1993. According to them his services were terminated by written order, dated 17-1-1994, following the domestic enquiry against him. In view of two conflicting versions, one of appellant that his services were terminated by verbal order and the other of Respondents' Mill that appellant's services were terminated by written order, it has got to be decided which of these versions was correct. As for the version of the appellant except his own oral word, there is absolutely no other evidence to support it. According to him following the verbal order of his termination he gave grievance notice, dated 9-12-1993. But the admitted prompt reply of the respondents to the said notice was indicative of their bona fides. In their reply respondents not only denied the termination of appellant's services but also informed him that on 28-11-1993, the date on which the verbal order of termination was allegedly made, he was charge-sheeted for the incident of 27-11-1993 reported against him. It is quite possible that the appellant on being charge-sheeted had apprehended his ultimate ouster from service and that is why in order to checkmate the respondents from taking such section against him, he snatched the initiative from them, and he falsely attributed to them the passing of verbal order of termination of his services. Therefore, it was difficult to accept the contentions of the appellant's learned Advocate that the respondents' action such as charge-sheet given to the appellant, holding of ex parte enquiry against him and issuing written order of dismissal were intended to cover up their initial illegality of having verbally terminated the appellant's services. I regret to say that I was not impressed by his arguments. If the respondents wanted to get rid of the appellant there was no reason for them to have first resorted to the course not warranted by law. It looked more probable that instead the appellant took the initiative because of his being charge-sheeted for the incident referred to above. The appellant has not been able to establish through reliable evidence that his services were terminated verbally on 28-11-1993. As stated earlier the only evidence this connection was appellant's own oral word. Moreover respondent's prompt reply, dated 12-12-1993 to the appellant's grievance notice, dated 9-12-1993 gave a lie to the appellant version at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore it was admitted by the appellant's advocate in course of his arguments that even second grievance notice was given to respondents on 14-12-1993. If two grievance notices one after the other could be given by the appellant to the respondent after oral termination of his services, it did not appeal to reason why he failed to give grievance notice after the written order of his dismissal was issued, particularly when he himself produced the said order (Annexure- G) alongwith his grievance petition). I am, therefore, convinced that appellant's grievance started with issuing of the said written order of dismissal and as such it became mandatory for him to give grievance notice to the respondents before going to Labour Court in the grievance petition. It is an admitted position that he had not given grievance notice subsequent to the written order of his dismissal had come to his notice.
7. In the case reported as 2000 PLC 166 the order of Labour Court reinstating employees with back- benefits was held null and void and was consequently set aside because grievance petition against termination of services was filed by the employees without first serving the grievance notice provided under section 25-A(1), I.R.O., 1969 on the employer. The Labour Court was held as not justified in accepting the grievance petition filed by the employees. The above decision finds support from another authority reported as 1975 PLC 196 given by the then Chairman of this Tribunal. Mr. Justice (Retd.) Inamullah Khan who was pleased to observe:-- "The intention of the legislature in framing section 25-A, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is two-fold, Firstly an opportunity should be given to the employer himself to redress the greivance of the individual workman expeditiously, and secondly, that it is only in case of failure on the part of the employer to redress the grievance, that the letter, if he so desires, can approach the Junior Labour Court for his grievance."
' From the above authority it is quite clear that before taking the grievance to the Labour Court for its redressal attempt should be made to have it redressed through employer and with a view to do that section 25-A referred to above has made it mandatory that grievance notice should first be served on the employer before approaching the Labour Court for the same purpose. In the present case as stated earlier no grievance notice was served on the Respondents after issuance of the written order of termination of the appellant's services.. Failure to do so rendered the filing of grievance petition as not maintainable. As such the findings of the Labour Court are correct to that extent. Having arrived at the conclusion it may not serve any useful purpose to record findings on other issues and therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard was far from convincing.
' As a result of above discussion the judgment of the lower Court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.