2000 PLP 116 (PLC)

3. The appellant being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of his removal, served a grievance notice on the General Manager of the respondent Corporation which was not responded. Therefore, he approached the labour Court through a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Ordinance for his reinstatement in service with fill back wages and benefits. The learned Labour Court, after trial, dismissed the grievance petition on the sole ground that the appellant has not served a grievance notice on the proper authority as required under the law and as such his petition was not legally maintainable before the Labour Court vide its order, dated 29‑6‑1998, which is impugned herein.

4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had served a proper grievance notice on the General Manager (Operation) of the respondent Corporation, who was the competent Authority and also the employer of the appellant workman, but the said notice was not considered as a valid grievance notice by the learned Labour Court who mis interpreted the provisions of section 25‑A(1) of the Ordinance and has, thus, arrived at a wrong conclusion. It was next argued by the learned counsel that no fair and impartial enquiry was constituted against the appellant nor he was provided any opportunity of defence, therefore, the respondent has committed flagrant violation of section 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent Corporation confined his argument to the maintainability and competency of the grievance petition and submitted that the appellant had not served a grievance notice on a proper authority as, required under the law, but it was served by him on the higher authority, the General Manager of the respondent Corporation, therefore, his grievance petition was rightly dismissed by the Labour Court being not legally maintainable. Learned counsel further submitted that appellant was appointed by the Deputy Manager of the respondent Corporation and he was also removed from service by him, therefore, the appellant should have served the grievance notice on the Deputy Manager instead of General Manager, but he has failed to follow the mandatory provision of law, therefore, he could not seek remedy before the Labour Court against his termination order.

5. The sole point involved for determination is whether the appellant had served a proper grievance notice as required by law. Under subsection (1) of section 25‑A of the Ordinance a worker may bring his grievance regarding his rights guaranteed or secured under any law, award or settlement, to the notice of his employer in writing either himself or through collective bargaining agent. The word employer had been defined in section 2(viii) of the Ordinance as under:‑‑ (viii) 'Employer' in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, who or which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes‑ (a) an heir, successor or assign, as the case may be, of such person or body as aforesaid; (b) any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment; (c) in relation to an establishment run by or under the authority of any department of the Federal Government or Provincial Government, the authority appointed in this behalf or, where no authority is so appointed, the Head of the Department; (d) in relation to an establishment run by or on behalf of a local authority, the officer appointed in this behalf, or where no officer is so appointed, the chief executive officer of that authority; Special Provision: for the purpose of distinction from the category of 'workers' or 'workmen' officers and employees of a department of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or local authority who belong to the superior, managerial, secretarial, directorial, supervisory or agency staff and who have been notified for this purpose in the official Gazette shall be deemed to fall within the category of 'employers'; (e) in relation to any other establishment, the proprietor of such establishment and every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management of the affairs thereof. " The above quoted definition connotes that employer is a person who employees workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment. Admittedly appellant was appointed by the Deputy Manager (Marketing) of the respondent Corporation and he was also removed from service by an order passed by him. Therefore, the Deputy Manager (Marketing) was the person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment of the Timber Market of Goharabad Unit, District Abbottabad, and as such grievance notice was required to be served on him but it was served on the General Manager who was the next higher authority of the respondent Corporation, and therefore, the appellant had failed to follow the mandatory provision of section 25‑A(I) of the Ordinance. It is well‑settled law that grievance notice has to be served upon the employer and not on any higher or appellate authority. Reference in this respect can be made to 1984 PLC

89. On merits too, there is no substance in the appellant's case, as he has admitted his guilt in the replies to the charge‑sheet and show cause notice and in his statement before the Court, and was removed from service in pursuance to the fair enquiry in which he fully participated. The result of the above discussion is that there is no legal or factual flaw in the impugned order of the learned trial Court and the same is accordingly upheld and the instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./226/Lab.(N.W.F.P) Appeal dismissed