1982 PLP 105 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

S. 25‑A‑‑Service of grievance notice denied by employer‑‑No proof to prove service‑Grievance petition in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed as not maintainable. S. P. Lodhi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 30thJuly, 1981. The appellant, who was employed by the Japan Airlines Company Ltd., the respondents herein, as a Junior Traffic Agent, on contract for a limited period with effect from 17thNovember, 1978, was orally discharg ed from service on 1st August 1979, some time after the original period of his contract had expired. The appellant challenged the termination of his services through a grievance petition filed before the learned Vth Labour Court. His grievance petition has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the ground that it had not been established that the appellant had gone to the respondent establishment to hand over the requisite grievance notice which is the foundation for filing a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 2. It was contended by Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant, that the appellant had served the requisite grievance notice on the respondent establishment on 18th October, 1979, and that it was received on behalf of the respondent by their Traffic Assistant, Israr Ahmed, who had affixed the seal of the respondent‑Company on, and had initialled the copy of the notice in token of its receipt. Israr Ahmed was examined before the learned Labour Court but he denied that the notice in question was given to him or received by him or that the initials on the photo copy of the notice, which has been filed by the appellant with his grievance petition were his. The learned Labour Court further compared the initials on the photo copy of the grievance notice with the initials of witness Israr Ahmed taken in Court and came to the firm conclusion that they did not tally and were not of the same person. It was on the basis of this evidence that the learned Labour Court held that no grievance notice had been served by the appellant on the respondent establishment. I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court parti cularly in view of the denial by witness Israr Ahmed that he had received a copy of the grievance notice of the appellant or that the initials on the alleged grievance notice are his. It is also not understood why the appellant chose to file a photocopy of the notice on which he claims to have obtained the initials of Israr Ahmed in token of service of notice upon the respondents. His failure to produce the original by itself casts doubts upon his clime. Although it is difficult to compare initials on a photo copy yet I have attempted to do so and find that there are basic differences between the initials on the photo copy and the initials of witness Israr Ahmed, taken in Court, this would suggest that the initials on the photo copy of the notice are perhaps not of Israr Ahmed. As for the seal on the photocopy, apart from the fact that it is not legible, Israr Ahmed has explained that their seal has a date embossed on it and the date is never written in hand. However, the date on the photocopy is in hand. This is a further circumstance indicating that the photocopy of the alleged grievance notice does not appear to have been served upon the respondent establishment. 3. For the reasons discussed above, I find no substance in this l8 appeal which, is accordingly, dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.