DECISION ' By the order dated 15th December, 1999 the Sindh Labour Court No,V, Karachi dismissed the grievance petition filed under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 as being not maintainable. The grievance petition was filed by Muhammad Anwar hereinafter referred to as appellant. His case is that he was employed as peon in M/s. Morgan Chemicals, hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Company, in 1980. Since then he was working to the satisfaction of his employers. After about 19 years of service the respondent-Company persuaded him to retire when he was drawing the salary of more than 5,000 per month and in return they promised to accommodate his three sons in service of salary of Rs,1, 500 each per month and in addition they promised to give him salary of Rs,2,000 per month for a period of one year. Somehow the appellant turned down the said offer as it was not acceptable to him. As a result his services were terminated by order dated 9th July, 1999 on the basis of 15 allegations listed in the Termination Order. No prior notice of the termination was given to him nor was any domestic enquiry held against him. The appellant had therefore no option but to serve a grievance notice dated 17th July, 1999 through his advocate Mr. Shafiq Ahmed. His grievance having remained unredressed he filed grievance petition on 14-10-1999.
2. In the Reply Statement the respondent-Company raised Preliminary Objection that the grievance notice was not served by the appellant himself but instead it was signed and sent by his advocate in violation of the requirement of section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. As such no valid grievance notice was served by the appellant; his grievance petition was liable to be dismissed summarily as not maintainable. The respondent-Company further reserved its right to file a detailed reply after the above Legal Objection was decided.
3. As disclosed in the impugned order, the learned Judge of Labour Court, after hearing the arguments of the advocates of both the parties and going through the relevant record dismissed the grievance petition as stated above.
4. Since the impugned order is wholly based on decision of the issue of the maintainability of the grievance petition, the learned counsel of the parties were called upon to confine their arguments only to the above legal point. I heard their arguments and went through the material available before this Tribunal.
5. The bone of contention between the parties was whether service of grievance notice on the respondent-Company through the appellant's advocate was valid. It is an admitted position that the grievance notice required to be served under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, was undoubtedly served on the respondent-Company but not by the appellant himself which was the mandatory requirement but it was served through his advocate. The grievance notice is at page 19 of the Lower Court's record. It is dated 17th July, 1999. It is clear from the notice that Mr. Shafiq Ahmed Advocate had given that notice to Mr. Z.H. Qazi, Manager Finance, Morgan Chemicals, Karachi. But as provided in section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 such notice which should be in writing had to be given either by the appellant himself or through his shop steward or Collective Bargaining Agent. No word 'advocate' is mentioned throughout the section. As such the learned counsel for the respondent- Company vehemently argued that the grievance notice served by the appellant Was not in accordance with requirement of above provision of law and hence the grievance petition filed on its basis was not maintainable. In support of this contention he cited number of authorities. It appears from the Lower Court's Order that the said Court has taken note of at least seven authorities listed in its Order on the point thatif the grievance notice is not served in accordance with section 25-A, IRO, 1969, the grievance petition filed on basis of such notice was not maintainable and therefore had to be dismissed as such. The important authority brought to my notice is PLD 1980 Supreme Court 20 which has been interpreted as under:- "The word 'himself' is prefixed by the word 'either' and coupled with the words or through his shop steward or Trade Union'. The word 'either' means 'one or the other' and the word 'through' denotes the concept of agency. Therefore, in construing the word 'himself' the words 'either' and 'through' cannot be overlooked. The former refers to the alternatives while the latter means a medium of agency. The word 'himself' means 'the emphatic form of he, him; in his real character'. Clearly, therefore, in using the word 'either' the Legislature provided alternatives to the workman or his agent such as the Shop Steward or the Trade Union and if the concept of agency is to be regarded as inherent in the word 'himself' then plainly it would be against its real meaning and this could not be intention of the Legislature which has purposely used this word to avoid legal quibbles. The legislative intent seems to be to avoid interference by any other outside agency. It would appear from the schemes of the legislation that the appearance through legal practitioners is restricted and wherever he is eligible to appear it has been so enacted. Section 49 of the Ordinance makes this intent obvious and in this view of the matter it would be anomalous to introduce the concept of agency in the word 'himself' for in that eventuality the object of the law can easily be defeated. It would also be inapt to introduce the consideration of illiteracy or the existence or non-existence of the alternatives while construing the word 'himself' as it is the principle of interpretation to give to the word its ordinary meaning for that is the only way to find out the intent of the Legislature."
In another authority of this Tribunal cited as 1981 PLC 899 it was held that grievance notice under section 25-A to the employer through advocate does not fulfil requirements of law and therefore, the proceedings based upon such notice were invalid.
' In view of above discussion the appeal must fail solely on the ground that the grievance notice to be served on the employer though given in the instant case by the appellant's advocate yet it would not fulfill the requirements of section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 and therefore the grievance petition filed on basis of such invalid grievance notice was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court has taken correct view of the law involved in the case. While upholding the decision of the learned Labour Court the appeal filed against such decision is dismissed.