1999 PLP 466 (PLC)

4. Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, raised the following submissions in support of appeal: ‑‑ (i) No grievance notice, as required under section 25‑A (1) of I.R.O., 1969, was served upon the appellant. (ii) The appellant was Manager of a Branch at Sukkur and so he is not covered by definition clause 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. (iii) Order of dismissal of the respondent was made at Karachi Central Office. It was Labour Court at Karachi, which had the jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition. In case, it is held that the Labour Court at Sukkur had jurisdiction, the Sukkur Branch has 12 workers only and, thus, the respondent was not governed by Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. (iv) The grievance petition is time‑barred.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record of the case.

6. The first point i.e. the absence of the grievance notice seems to be a vital point. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan, candidly conceded before me that if the finding on that issue is against the respondent, he will be out of Court. Mr. Awan further submits that the grievance notice dated 4‑4‑1998 was sent to the appellant Bank through T.C.S. Reference is made by him to Annexure 'A' at page 51 of the R&P which appears to be a delivery confirmation, which is unsigned. Even the name and address of the consignee is not there except "V.P.& Secretary." Under column "received by", it is written only "STAMP" with no name or signatures. This document does not inspire confidence that the grievance notice was sent to and received by the appellant. Mr. Faruq Ghant invites my attention to paragraph 11 at page 6 of the grievance application, which, inter alia, states that a notice under section 25‑A(i) of I.R.O., !969 was sent to respondents under "registered poet" but no postal receipts were produced. Annexure 'A' is very much there, but a is the alleged delivery confirmation of T.C.S., which has just been‑referred by me.

7. I am not ready to give any weight to the alleged delivery confirmation, which remains unproved. It has neither been signed by any officer of the T.C.S. nor any witness was produced to testify the alleged delivery confirmation. It is in fact, a simple typed piece of paper. In this view of the matter, it is held that no grievance notice, as required under section 25‑A(1) of I.R.O., 1969 was served on the appellant, which is a condition precedent for filing a grievance petition.

8. It does not, therefore, seem necessary for me to go into the discussion on other points, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, as stated in para. 6 above.

9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the learned Labour Court No. VII, stands set aside.

10. In view of allowing the appeal, Miscellaneous No. 18 of 1998, filed by the respondent becomes infructuous and stands dismissed. Announced in open Court this the 24th day of February, 1999. H.B.T./264/K/Lab. (Trib.) Appeal allowed.