1979 PLP 322 (PLC)

Mustafa Lakhani for Petitioner. S. Tariq Ali for Respondent No.

3. Dates of hearing : 17th and 19th December, 1975. The petitioner is Editor of "Daily Morning News" published in Karachi and Chief Executive of the National News Publications Limited who are the proprietors of "Daily Morning News". The third respondent was employed by the petitioner with effect from 7th March, 1973, as a Staff Reporter on temporary basis for a period of six months on a consolidated salary of Rs. 500 per month. His services were liable to be terminated without any notice. The work of the third respondent was found unsatisfactory during the period of first six months. Hence, the petitioner wanted to terminate his services but on the request of the third respondent his services were extended upto 31st December, 1973. Subsequently, the extension was granted upto 31st March, 1974, whereafter his services were terminated. However, on an approach being made by the Union a fresh ad hoc appointment was given to the third respondent for two months with effect from 10th April, 1974. On 9th June, 1974, the period of ad hoc appointment expired and the third respondent was accordingly served with a notice of termination of services and his services were finally terminated.

2. The third respondent moved an application before the Junior Labour Court challenging the order of termination of his services. The Junior Labour Court ordered his re‑instatement on 19th September, 1974. An appeal was filed against this order by the petitioner which was dismissed by Labour Court on 11th December, 1974. The petitioner has now filed this petition challenging the orders of the Junior Labour Court dated 19th September, 1974, and Labour Court dated 11th December, 1974.

3. The only ground raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no grievance notice as envisaged by section 25‑A (1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the application moved before the Junior Labour Court was not maintainable. This point was urged by the petitioner before the Junior Labour Court as well as the Labour Court but both the Courts below failed to give any decision on this point. The learned counsel for the third respondent has admitted that the grievance notice had not been served upon the petitioner. In his statement before the Junior Labour Court which has been filed as Annexure 'K' with the writ petition the third respondent has admitted that he did not give any grievance notice to the petitioner. The statutory position is that the grievance procedure must necessarily be adopted before resorting to make an application to the Junior Labour Court under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Reliance can bee placed on Naseem Silk Industries v. V Sind Labour Court (1977 P L C 489). In this case it is held that the grievance procedure should necessarily be adopted by an aggrieved worker before approaching the Junior Labour Court as it was mandatory. I have already held in a case reported in P L J 1975 Kar. 304 that compliance of the provisions of section 25‑A (1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was necessary as the said provisions were mandatory in nature.

4. In view of the above discussion it can be said without any fear of contradictions that the third respondent having not complied with the provisions of section 25‑A (1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hi application before the Junior Labour Court was not maintainable. The Junior Labour Court and Labour Court before whom this point was agitated should have considered and given a finding on it. I am at a loss to under stand as to why these Courts omitted to consider this point which was of fundamental importance for the purpose of adjudication of this case.

5. For the reasons given above I allow this petition and declare that the impugned orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case I would not mulct the third respondent with costs. Petition allowed.