1979 PLP 269 (PLC)

Petitions Nos. 222 to 225 of 1977, decided on 18th November 1978.

S. 25‑A‑Grievance notice‑To be served after order giving cause of action‑Notice served merely on alleged verbal refubal to provide work‑Written termination order issued subsequent to such notice‑Such notice, in circumstances, held, not a valid grievance notice entitling remedy before Labour Court. Sarfraz Ahmad for Petitioners. Ch. Altaf Husain for Respondents. Muhammad Akram, petitioner, Ex. Peon, S. A. Karim Cotton Factory, Kehror Pacca filed a petition under section 25‑A of I. R. O., 1969, for his re‑instatement in service. According to his petition, he was worker of S. A. Karim, Cotton Factory, Kehror Pacca and on nationalization of the factory he was considered to be an employee of the Cotton Trading Corporation. Subsequent to de‑nationalization of the Factory his services were re‑transferred to S. A. Karim Cotton Factory, Kehror Pacca, where he continued to work for some time and on 8‑11‑1977 he was refused to perform his duties in the factory which was equal to his termination from service, The petitioner repeatedly applied to the respondent No. 1 for being taken back on duty but he was put off on promises and ultimately refused to be given any duty. He, therefore, served a grievance notice dated 12‑11‑1977 on respondent No. 1 and on 16‑11‑1977 when he went to the factory for the reply of the grievance notice he was handed over a letter of termination dated 16‑11‑1977. Hence the petition for re‑instatement. The petitioner also impleaded Safdar Trading Company, Cotton‑ginners, Kehror Pacca, as respondent No. 2 without clarifying the company's position in the petition in relation to his service in S. A. Karim Cotton Factory. Muhammad Rafique, Ex‑Clerk, Shabbir Ahmad, Ex‑Junior Assistant, Muhammad Akram Qaiser, Accountant of S. A. Karim Cotton Factory, Kehror Pacca, have also filed separate petitions under section 25‑A of I. R. O. in regard to the same cause of action on the basis of similar circumstances. All the four petitions have, therefore, been consolidated and any reference to Muhammad Akram, petitioner would be considered to be a. reference to all the four petitioners and they will be disposed of with the disposal of the said petition by the present judgment. 2. According to written statement, a preliminary objection inter alia has been raised in regard to the non‑entertainability of the petition due to non‑service of a valid grievance notice. According to the petition, grievance notice was served on respondent No. 1 on 12‑11‑1977 when he was refused to be given duty in the factory and that it was only on 16‑11‑1977 that the petitioner was handed over the termination order. Admittedly the petitioner did not send any grievance notice to respondent No. 1 after the receipt of termination letter dated 16‑11‑1977. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner's notice dated 12‑11‑1977 pertained to the grievance of lock‑out when he was refused to be given duty in the factory without the issuance of any termination order. That it was only on 16‑11‑1977 that the service of the petitioner were terminated through an order reduced into writing and the petitioner was bound to give a grievance notice within three months of the date of termination under section 25‑A, subsections 1 to 4 in the absence of which this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The contention of the learned counsel has force and cannot be brushed by the mere plea that the notice dated 12‑11‑19771 sent by the petitioner against his lock‑out might be considered as a grievance notice against the petitioner's termination. Because any illegal lock‑out of the worker or refusal on the part of an industrial Management to provide work to him in the factory cannot by itself be regarded as termination of the worker's, service unless some comprehensive order is passed by the management to terminate his services. In the present case mere verbal order or the respondent No.1 alleged on the part of the petitioner and denied on behalf of respondent cannot be considered in the eye of law as the final termination of the petitioner and for that reason the notice dated 12‑11‑1977 sent by the petitioner could hardly be regarded as valid notice of grievance in‑connection with the termination of the, petitioner's services. Consequently the petitioner must be regarded to have been filed in the Court without serving any grievance notice on the respondent which was a mandatory prerequisites for bringing a petition under section 25‑A of the I. R. O., 1969. Since this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the petition without the service of grievance notice on the respondent, the petition mint fail and is, there for, dismissed. A copy of the judgment may be filed with the other three cases and the file may be consigned on 18‑11‑1978.