1. ' This is an Appeal against an order dated 23-5-1975 of Junior Labour Court No. II, Karachi allowing application under section. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 of respondent workman and reinstating him in service with full back benefit.
2. ' The short facts of this Appeal are that the Respondent was appointed as Chief Accountant with the appellant-Company at Charsada (N.-W. F. P.) on 26-7-1973 on salary of Rs. 1,700 per month. The respondent through out served as such at Charsada (N.-W. F. P) till the date of termination of his service on 13-5-1974. The appellants alleges that the respondent does not fall within the definition of "workman" as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He has not challanged termination of his services but only claimed relief for three months salary in lieu of notice. Subsequently he filed an application under section 25-A of I. R.
3. 0., 1969 before Junior Labour Court on 17-12-1974 which was accepted hence this Appeal.
4. ' Heard Messrs S. M. Saeed and Abdul Sattar, Advocates of both the parties.
5. ' First contention of Mr. S. M. Saeed is that the respondent workman gave three notices to the Employer and first two copies are dated 19-6-1974 and 13-7-1974, Exh. 1-E and Exh. 1-F (pages 25 and 29) and in these notices the respondent workman does not claim relief of re-instatement but his dues. His further contention is that he served the employer with third notice dated 10-8-74 Exh.
6. 1-G, page No. 33 through an Advocate. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Sattar argues that notices Exhs.
7. 1-E and 1-F are not 'grievance notice' while third notice dated 10-8-74 marked as Exh. 1-G is a grievance notice within the meaning of section 25-A of I. R. O.
8. 1969. Now point of consideration arises whether the "grievance notice" could be given by any Advocate and whether it is valid in law. In this connection subsection ( 1 ) of section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969 is relevant. The subsection (1) contemplates that a grievance notice can be given to an Employer in writing by persons of three categories namely (1) by workman himself, or (2) through shop-steward (3) through a Trade Union. The word "himself" does not include an Advocate or an agent. In this respect I get support from the judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Mir Khud Bux Marri in a Constitutional Petition No. 1285/74 decided on 3-3-1975 wherein his Lordship has observed the word "himself" in section 25-A(1 must be interpreted strictly and it cannot be given any extended or wide 4 interpretation. In view of this judgment presentation of grievance notice through an Advocate by the worker does not amount as presentation himself". Therefore the notice through an Advocate is invalid and the application under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is in competent.
9. ' Next point contended by Mr. S. M. Saeed is that the matter is barred by the limitation as services of respondent worker were terminated with effect from 13-5-1974 under Letter No. Ad-R-8844/786, dated 29-5-1974 page No. 21, but the application under section 25-A of I. R.
0. 1969 was filed as late as 17-12-1974. The application was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation. There is no explanation for the long delay of more than 4 months.
10. ' The impugned order is illegal. The learned lower Court has failed to consider the above legal aspect of the case. Accordingly I allow the appeal without going into the merit of the case and set aside the impugned order. I make no order as to costs.
11. ' Decision dictated in open Court in presence of parties and their Advocates.