2018 PLP 15 (PLC N)

ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER.

The appellant has challenged order, dated 19 August, 2017, of the Sindh Labour Court No.05, Karachi, dismissing his grievance Application No. 46 of 2016 (old No.16 of 2016), on the ground that before filing the application he had not given grievance notice to the respondents.

2. Briefly, the facts are that, on 21 January 2016, the appellant filed application in the labour court contending that he was a permanent worker, working as electrician, in the factory of the respondents for the last about three years, lastly drawing monthly pay of Rs.15,500/-. According to him, the respondents deprived their all workers, including himself, of their legal rights such as bonus, share in profit, leave encashment, overtime payment etc. and when he demanded his rights, particularly overtime payment, they verbally terminated his services and did not allow him to enter the factory from 03 November 2015. He claimed to have served the requisite grievance notice on the respondents on 30 December 2015, but they did not give him any reply.

3. In their written statement, the respondents denied to have deprived the appellant or any other worker of any legal right and contended that the appellant had himself left the job voluntarily and therefore, his entry was banned from 07 October 2015. They denied to have received the grievance notice.

4. The appellant examined himself; while the respondents filed affidavits of two witnesses, Asif Ali and Abdul Wahab, but did not produce them for cross-examination. The labour court dismissed the application on the ground of 'not sending the grievance notice to the employer before approaching the labour court'.

5. In his application as well as in his affidavit-in-evidence, the appellant specifically stated that he had sent the grievance notice to the respondents which was received by them but they did not given him any reply. Copies of the notice and the postal receipt were filed with the application. The original postal receipt was subsequently filed with statement.

6. In his cross-examination, the appellant, while stating that he had not sent the grievance notice to the respondents, stated that the grievance notice was signed by him, its contents were read over to him and it might have been sent by his advocate.

7. Wholly relying upon the above admission of the appellant, the labour court dismissed his application as not maintainable for want of the grievance notice.

8. The objective of bringing worker's grievance to notice of the employer is to provide opportunity to the employer to redress his grievance at his own level and to save the parties from cumbersome litigation. The respondents who are not prepared to redress grievance of the appellant even after his knocking door of the court, cannot be expected that they would have redressed his grievance simply on bringing it to their notice.

9. For an admission to be made basis of a finding, it is necessary that it should be unambiguous. Any ambiguity arising must be resolved in favour of the person making the admission.

10. In this case, the appellant did not say that he had not given the grievance notice. On the contrary he produced its copy along with the postal receipt and stated that its contents were read over to him and it bore his signature. It appears that there was some confusion about sending the notice and not about the notice itself. According to him, the notice, which he had himself signed, might have been sent by his advocate.

11. The case of Syed Muhammad Hussain v. Messrs Tobacco Co. Ltd. (PLD 1980 SC 80), relied by the labour court is distinguishable, as in that case the notice was given by an advocate for and on behalf of the worker, while in this case notice is given / signed by the worker himself and there is confusion only in sending / posting it. In the cited case there is nothing to suggest that the notice was required to be posted by the worker himself. In such circumstances, the labour court was not justified to dismiss the grievance application as incompetent for want of grievance notice. The order of the labour court is, therefore, set aside, the case is remanded to the labour court for fresh decision on merits on all issues, including the issue of service of grievance notice, after giving opportunity to both parties to produce any further evidence in support of their contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the labour court on 01 November 2017 and the labour court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within two months under intimation to this Tribunal. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Announced in open court on this 24th day of October, 2017. HBT/3/SLT Case remande