1987 PLP 570 (PLC(CS))

Suleman Habibullah for Appellant. Kamal Mansoor Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 19‑2‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. 2 Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was a permanent workman of the respondent Establishment since 17‑11‑1980 and his work was satisfactory. On 31‑7‑1984, a show‑cause notice was issued to him containing the charge of an attempt to outrage the modesty of the daughter of Feroze Khan on 24‑4‑1984, in the premises of Steel Town, Karachi. The charge was denied by the appellant in his reply to the show‑cause notice, but, the respondent, after suspending the appellant, had instituted an enquiry against him resulting in his dismissal from service. The case of the appellant was that neither the name of the complainant and his witnesses were communicated to him nor the Enquiry Officer had examined his defence witnesses or had allowed the assistance of a co‑worker in the domestic enquiry, therefore, the enquiry was not fair, proper and legal and that he did not commit a misconduct, within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. That, as his grievance notice, dated 1‑11‑1984 was not considered sympathetically, therefore, he filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent Establishment resisted the petition and had submitted that though the appellant was a permanent workman and his work was satisfactory, yet, he was issued a proper and lawful show‑cause notice, dated 31‑7‑1984 containing a charge of gross‑misconduct and in view of his un‑satisfactory reply to the said show‑cause notice, a proper and fair enquiry was conducted against him in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and during the pendency of this enquiry, he was lawfully suspended. As a result of this domestic enquiry, in which he was found guilty of the misconduct, the appellant was correctly dismissed from service and nothing wrong or unjust has been done against him. That the appellant had not complied with the mandatory and legal requirement of the Law by properly and reasonably serving a grievance notice on the employer before filing of his grievance petition, under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the Labour Court, therefore, his petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

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

5. I have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. The main issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the appellant had served a grievance notice upon the employer before approaching the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to establish that the appellant had properly and reasonably served his grievance notice upon the employer. The appellant in support of this issue has only produced Annexure 'C' which bears a wrong stamp of outward diary' of Pakistan Steel, instead of bearing a stamp of 'inward diary'. This annexure, also bears an illegible initial of a person, receiving it on behalf of the respondent Establishment. The respondent Establishment had categorically denied the receipt of the grievance notice, therefore, it was the responsibility of the appellant to produce the person who had received the alleged grievance notice on behalf of the respondent Establishment. The appellant had miserably failed to discharge this responsibility. Considering the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that as the appellant has failed to establish that he served a proper and valid grievance notice on the respondents Establishment, as required by section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, his grievance petition was not maintainable and thus was liable to be dismissed.

6. Reverting to the merits of the case, the appellant has himself to have called the daughter of Feroze Khan from her house confessed through his niece, Rehana and that his statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. As the appellant had straight‑away admitted his guilt that he had called the daughter of Feroze Khan from her house through his niece, namely, Rehana, therefore, it was not found necessary to the Enquiry Officer, either to record the statements of the defence witnesses, or to record the prosecution evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer had committed any illegality. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the misconduct and that the enquiry was properly conducted by the Enquiry Officer.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. M.Y.H.1910/Lb. Appeal dismissed.