1987 PLP 806 (PLC(CS))

Abdul Ghani Khan for Appellant. Basheer Awan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10‑7‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant filed by him under section 25‑A , I. R. O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed in the respondent mills as Cane Inspector and that one Faqir Ahmad Palejo was granted loan by the respondent Mills on furnishing surety' of four guarantors, but, at the time of making recovery of the loan, the appellant did not communicate the name of the guarantors, namely, Ali Muhammad and Muhammad Arif with the result that the outstanding loan could not be recovered. Thereupon, the appellant was charge sheeted and after recovery of the said loan, he was removed from service on 7‑9‑1982. Being aggrieved with the removal order, the appellant filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent mills resisted the petition before the learned Labour Court and resisted that it was the responsibility of the appellant to prepare list of true guarantors at the time of granting loans to the parties, but, due to his negligence, the management had suffered a substantial loss, therefore, after affording fill and proper opportunity to defend himself, his services were terminated. As regards the maintainability of the grievance petition, it was the case of the respondent mills that it was not filed against the management of the respondent mills, therefore, it cannot be maintained and was liable to be dismissed

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent mills and I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that neither the grievance notice nor the grievance petition were either addressed or filed against the 'employer' i.e. the management of the respondent mills, but, they both were specifically in the name of 'administrative officer', who was not at all an 'employer' within the meaning of the Labour Laws. It is a settled law that the relief can be sought only against such person who is competent and authorised to grant such relief or implement the directions of the Court. In the present case, the appellant has sued an incompetent person and sought the setting aside of an order which was never passed by him. I, therefore, hold that the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable, hence, it is dismissed.

6. As regards the merits of the case, there is again an admitted position that the appellant used to supervise the work of at least four Fieldmen and he himself did, not perform any clerical or manual work. I, therefore, hold that as the appellant was not a workman, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. Further, I find nothing wrong with the enquiry proceedings, particularly in view of the categorical admission of the charges by the appellant himself, therefore, the respondent mills was correct to terminate the services of the appellant as if an employee commits any fault which may cause heavy loss to the management, then, it is for the management to take any action it may deem fit in the circumstances of a particular case.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. A. E. /920/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.