1988 PLP 873 (PLC(CS))

Qazi Sajid Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 8‑2-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. li, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been permanently working as a Mechanic Fitter in the respondent factory since 6‑7‑1982 on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500 and that as he was not provided other legitimate and lawful benefits. He demanded thetas from the respondents, therefore, on his refusal to give up these demands, he was verbally terminated from service on 4‑12‑1984. The appellant further claimed that his termination from service was colourable exercise of powers in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 12(l). Thus being aggrieved he served upon the respondent factory a grievance notice on 15‑2‑1984 and filed petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent factory resisted the grievance petition on a number of legal as well as factual points and had claimed that the appellant's assignment was temporary as Supervisor Mechanic Fitter on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500.00 having all powers of hire and fire. They denied that the termination of the appellant was illegal, mala fide and contrary to the provisions of law. The respondent management also challenged the maintainability of the grievance petition of the appellant, mainly on two grounds firstly that the appellant did not comply with the legal requirement by properly and reasonably serving a grievance notice upon them before filing his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court and secondly, that the grievance petition was not signed by the aggrieved person i.e. the appellant himself, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of law the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Qazi Sajid All, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. Besides the established factual position that the appellant, on merits, has no case whatsoever, his present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 was also not maintainable and liable to be dismissed mainly on two settled principles of Law. Firstly, there is an admitted position that the appellant has miserably failed to establish from a specific and direct. evidence that he had lawfully and properly served upon the respondent establishment his grievance p notice before filing his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. Secondly, the grievance petition being signed by an Advocate, instead of the aggrieved person i.e. the appellant himself in accordance with the settled principles of law, was not all legally maintainable. Reliance is placed also on an authority of this Tribunal on a decision dated 1‑2‑1987 on an Appeal No.. KAR‑ B 634/83 in the. case of Ali Haider v. Mesers Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi, in which it was held as under:‑ . "I, therefore, hold that the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court filed by an Advocate instead of the appellant himself or .Shop Steward or bargaining agent, was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on this score only." Thus, I would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order and maintain the same.

6. For the reasons stated by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. I would dismiss the present appeal accordingly. A.E/1086/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.