2000 PLP 472 (PLC)

Appeal No.7/2000 "Fazal Subhan v. GTS etc." Appeal No.8/2000 "Said Afzal v. GTS etc." Appeal No.9/2000 "Said Sabir Shah v. GTS etc." Appeal No.10/2000 "Abdul Qadoos v. GTS etc." Appeal No. 11/2000 "Muhammad Luqman v. GTS etc." Appeal No.12/2000 "Nazifur Rehman v. GTS Appeal No.13/2000 "Gulam Haidar v. GTS etc." Appeal No.14/2000 "Khadim Hussain v. GTS etc." Appeal No.15/2000 "Bashir Ahmad v. GTS etc."

2. All the Appeals, aforesaid, involve the same question of law and fact. The appellants were removed from service of Government Transport Service whereupon they served Grievance Notices upon the employer and thereafter filed the grievance petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relation's Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court, which were dismissed through Order dated 16‑11‑1999 on the grounds that the grievance notices where not served upon the employer by the appellants in person but through their counsel and hence the notices being void, the appellants had no cause of action to file grievance petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. Whether the grievance notice with reference to the words and phrases used in section 25‑A of the I.R.O could be filed through a counsel, stands completely answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Syed Muhammad Hussain v. Pakistan Tobacco Company" (PLD 1980 SC 80) wherein it was held that the word "himself" used in section 25‑A (1) does not involve the concept of Agency. It was specifically held that the grievance notice served by an Advocate on behalf of his client was not in conformity with the requirement of law. In these circumstances, and in such interpretation of the law done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the grievance petitions were rightly dismissed.

4. The learned counsel produced a decision of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal cited as (1997 TD (Lab.) 230) where the notice sent by an Advocate was considered to be valid. Such decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal cannot override the interpretation already done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling discussed above.

5. Learned counsel further referred to an authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Packages Limited v. Muhammad Maqbool etc." (PLD 1991 SC 258) on the point that a grievance petition could directly be filed in the Labour Court without grievance notice. A perusal of the judgment would indicate that the law was interpreted in the light of subsection (6) of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but the same subsection was omitted by Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977, which was enforced on 28‑1‑1977. After 28‑1‑1977, subsection (6) of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. is not a part of the law and hence the issuance of the grievance notice before filing the grievance petition cannot be ignored or by‑passed. The above case had dealt with a situation that related to a period between 1973 and 1977: The latest position is that subsection (6) stands omitted from section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

6. As a result of the above discussion, all the appeals are hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T.232/Lab.(NWFP) Appeals dismissed.