1. ' The petitioner Ghulam Siddique challenged the order of the respondent dated 11th October, 1976, wherein the respondent refused to re-instate the petitioner in service in his petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed on 8th November, 1976.
2. ' The facts alleged in the petition are that the petitioner was a junior clerk in the respondent- Company P. T. I. Limited and was posted in Jehangira Factory on 21st September, 1970. The respondent took on lease the M. I. L. Industry and transferred the services of the petitioner to the M. I.
3. L., Mardan as an Attendance Clerk vide Order No. 6711, dated 14th May, 1971. The petitioner was later on confirmed as Junior Clerk by the respondent with effect from 1st July, 1971 and again promoted as Timekeeper in Grade III with effect from 1st July, 1973. On the expiry of the lease period the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 30th August, 1976, on the ground that since the respondent had no concern with M. I. L., Mardan after 31st August, 1976, therefore the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner allegedly served the grievance notice copy Exh. P. W. 1/5, dated 29th September, 1976, but the respondent rejected the grievance notice vide Letter No. 2235, dated 11th October, 1976.
4. ' This petition has been contested on various grounds. The primary being the fact that no grievance notice was served by the petitioner on the respondent after 11th October, 1976 on which date the impugned order was passed. Evidence of the parties was recorded and the petition was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner. On appeal the learned Chairman, Labour Appallate Tribunal remanded the case to this Court and evidence was recorded according to the remand order by this Court.
5. ' The facts alleged in the petition are not controverted in the evidence of the respondent. The only point that requires determination in the case is as to when the services of the petitioner were terminated, and as to when he was informed and received the termination order and as to whether the petitioner has or has not served the grievance notice within the stipulated period after the receipt of the termination order. The petitioner relies on the letter sent by bim to the respondent on 28th September, 1976, and would like to consider it was a grievance notice as contemplated under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Now from the evidence on record and admission of the petitioner on file it is abundantly clear that on 28th September, 1976, he had no knowledge whatsoever of any orders passed with respect to termination of his service and hence in view of the admission made by him this cannot be considered as a grievance notice contemplated under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. According to his own admission he received order, dated 30th August, 1976, enclosed together which means that the services of the petitioner stood terminated the moment he received the termination order and this was done by the impugned order dated 11th October, 1976. Hence the grievance of the petitioner commenced from 11th October, 1976 and it was after this date when he was supposed to send the grievance notice. As no such grievance notice was served on the respondent. (The letter Exh. P. W. 1/5, being excluded from consideration as grievance notice for the reasons mentioned above) after 11th October, 1976, therefore the petitioner could not file his petition under section 25-A of the 4 Industrial Relations Ordinance, as a grievance notice is pre-requisite for filing the petition under section 25-A for restoration of the guaranteed rights Hence the petition is rejected on the technical grounds otherwise on merits the petitioner has a sound case in his favour.
6. Petition rejected.