1989 PLP 69 (PLC)

Manib Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st February, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30‑10‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1 at Karachi who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25‑A,. I.R.O. 1969, filed by the appellant holding it not legally maintainable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been employed as a Driver in the respondent establishment for a period of 6 years and when he demanded certain benefits as well as security of his services and also the payment of overtime for Fridays and Festival holidays etc. one of the partners of the establishment was annoyed with him and had orally terminated the services without assigning any reason. The appellant claimed that being aggrieved; he served his grievance notice upon the respondent establishment on 19‑1‑1986, followed by grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent establishment instead of resisting the petition on merits, had raised legal objections on the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the appellant had not served upon them his mandatory grievance notice, therefore, the grievance petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence in support of their respective contentions on the maintainability of the grievance petition. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lohdi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Munib Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted by both the parties, At the very outset, I would hold that the learned Labour Court was not correct in passing the impugned order dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant on the sole ground that the appellant had not established the fact of service of his mandatory grievance notice upon the respondent establishment before filing grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. From the perusal of the record, I am convinced that the appellant had very successfully discharged his responsibility of proving that he had served the grievance notice as per settled law. The grievance notice was sent under registered A/D photostat and original of the same had been lawfully brought on record and the same was also correctly sent on the genuine and admitted address of the respondent establishment. Therefore, in view of this factual position and the settled principle of law, I would hold the service of the grievance notice upon the respondent establishment as good. It was the duty of the respondent establishment to prove that the postal authorities did not serve the same upon them. In view of this position, why the appellant should suffer. From the perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Labour Court had not given reasons in his impugned order regarding the facts and merits of the case of the appellant. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order and would remand the present case to the learned Labour Court to decide the petition of the appellant on facts as well as merits, within a period of one month herefrom.

6. For the above reasons, I would set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original Labour Court with the above directions. A.E/1289/Lb. S. Case remanded.