1989 PLP 175 (PLC)

Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 21st February, 1988. This is au appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 7‑4‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1 at Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the respondent claimed to have been appointed as Ward Boy in the appellants department on 25‑12‑1976 and after satisfactory completion of the probationary period, he was confirmed as a permanent workman also entrusting the duties of Laundry Attendant from 1979 to 1986 at a total emoluments of Rs.992 per month, but, was nto paid the arrears of his dues and was also not promoted as Laundry Attendant. The respondent further claimed that he demanded the payment of his arrears as well as the promotion as Laundry Attendant, which had annoyed the appellants, therefore, he was charge‑sheeted on 21‑9‑1985 and an improper and false domestic enquiry was conducted in which he was not afforded full opportunity to defend himself and ultimately, he was dismissed from service. Thus being aggrieved the respondent submitted his present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The appellants resisted the petition on the ground that the respondent was involved in a case of forgery having forged the signatures of Medical Officer, Incharge Store and OPD, so he was issued a charge‑sheet and as a proper and lawful enquiry was conducted against him in which he has found guilty of the misconduct, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service, hence, he was not entitled to maintain the grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. The respondent filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence before the learned Labour Court, but, he was not subjected to cross‑examination, therefore, his evidence has gone unchallenged. The appellants had failed to adduce any evidence, therefore they had nothing on record in rebuttal of the respondent's claim. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Yasin Kayam, the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondent. Riaz Ahmad in person and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset I would dismiss the present appeal as being not maintainable for the two main reasons, firstly, that the present appeal has been submitted before this Tribunal by Mr. Muhammad Yasin Kayam, the learned Advocate for the appellants and not by the appellants themselves and secondly the appellants have nothing on record in rebuttal of the claim of the respondent. It is the consistent view of this Tribunal that as a settled principle of law and considering the authorities, an aggrieved person is mandatorily bound to present his grievance before, either the Labour Court or the Tribunal. Further the appellants have failed to properly and lawfully defend their case before the learned Labour Court which means that the dismissal from service of the respondent was nothing but a victimization, mala fide and revenge of the officers of the department because the respondent had demanded the payment of arrears and promotion to the post of a Laundry Attendant on which lob, he had satisfactorily worked for a considerable time. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that the learned Labour Court has passed correctly the impugned order and there is nothing wrong with it therefore, it is upheld.

6. For the reasons stated by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.E./1245/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.