This is an appeal against the order of the Production Manager, Mardan Industries Project, Sakha Kot Factory dated 30-8-1976, and that of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar dated 12-1-1978, whereby the services of the appellant were terminated.
2. The facts, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are that the appellant was a junior clerk in the respondent-Company, P. T. I. Limited, and was posted at Jehangira Factory on 21-9-1970. The respondent took on lease M. I. L. Industry and transferred the services of the appellant to it as an Attendance Clerk, vide Order No. 6711, dated 14th May 1970. The appellant was later on confirmed as junior clerk by the respondent with effect from 1st of July 1971 and promoted as timekeeper in Grade III with effect from 1-7-1973. On the expiry of- the lease period of M. I. L. Industry the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 30-8-1976 on the ground that the respondent had no longer any concern with M. I. L, Mardan. The appellant being aggrieved served a Grievance Notice, copy Exh. P. W. 1/5, dated 29-9-1976, which was rejected by the respondent, vide their Office Letter No. 2235, dated 11-10-1976. Before the Labour Court the petition was contested and the legal objection, which was taken to the maintainability of the petition was that no grievance notice was served by the appellant on the respondent after the 11th of October 1976, for which the impugned order was passed.
3. The learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that about the facts alleged in the petition before him there was no dispute, but the only point which required consideration, according to the learned Labour Court, was as to when the services of the appellant were terminated and as to when he was informed by a written notice that his services were terminated. The petitioner before the Labour Court relied on the letter sent by him to the respondent on the 28th of September 1976 and made efforts to prove that it was the Grievance Notice as contemplated by section 25-A of I. R. O.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the grievance notice, copy of which has been placed on the record (Exh. P. W. I/5), complies with the requirements of section 25-A. On going through this letter I find that this letter dated 28th September 1976, reads; "The lease tenure terminated on 31-8-1976. Rest of the permanent staff appointed by P. T. I. /M. I. L.
Have been accommodated by P. T. I., whereas, being an confirmed employee, my name has been ignored. Nothing kind of notice, discharge or termination letter has been issued by the Company to me. It means that my services, are still with the Company. I approached to the authorities but all in vain.
It is requested that wages due since 31-8-1916 be paid and my posting' orders may be issued, otherwise I will be compelled to knock the doors of Honourable Labour Court to seek the justice and the company in question will be responsible for this."
To this letter the respondent replied vide letter photostat copy Exh. P. W. I/6` that the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 31-8-1976, vide Letter No. PRI/1877 dated 30th of August 1976 of Production Manager, Mardan Industry Ltd. But the appellant refused to acknowledge the receipt of the said termination order which was later on sent to him on his available address by post, and that copy of the said termination order was again enclosed. As regards the dues of the appellant it was stated in the letter that those were payable on the afternoon of 31st August 197 which were offered to him and to other workers, but he refused to receive the dues for reasons not known. Demand draft was sent to him in lie of the final settlement of his dues the assertion of the appellant that h continued to be in service of the respondent was also rejected by the respondent vide the same letter. While in the witness-box the appellant" himself admitted at two places in the following words :- "It is correct that I learnt about the termination of my service by letter of the respondent dated 11th of October 1976, Exh. P. W. 1/6 Alongwith Exh. P. W. I/61 received P. W. 1/4 wherein my services were terminated. I also received a Bank draft for Rs. 2,786.35."
At another place he stated "after the receipt of Exh. P. W, I/6 I straightaway came to this Hon'ble Court and have not sent any grievance notice to the respondent thereafter."
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that letter photostat copy Exh. P. W. 1/5 is in fact a grievance notice under section 2S-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and that there was no further notice required to be served upon the respondent, is of no substance as the appellant himself has admitted that after the receipt of the termination notice dated 11-10-1976 he had not served the respondent with any grievance notice. He also received all his dues, therefore, it is rightly held that the grievance of the appellant commenced after the 11th of October 1976 and it was after this date that he was supposed to serve the respondent with a grievance notice, and the letter Exh. P. W. 1/5 being not a grievance notice, the case of the appellant fails on this ground. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.