1988 PLP 66 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 27th April, 1987. These are two appeals filed by the appellants against a common impugned order, dated 19‑4‑1984 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1 Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that both the appellants were permanent employees of the respondent establishment since last 15/ 16 years. On 10‑10‑1982, they were issued a charge‑sheet alleging their insubordination and refusal to obey the lawful orders of the employers resulting into the losses to the respondent establishments. The reply to charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was held against them resulting in their dismissal from service. The appellants claimed that after proper service of grievance notices upon the respondent establishment, they preferred grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petitions mainly on the legal objection that the appellants had failed to serve mandatory grievance notices upon the employer, therefore, they could not maintain their grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. On merit, they have claimed that as the charge of misconduct was fully established against the appellants in a proper fair, impartial and lawful domestic enquiry, therefore, they were rightly dismissed from service nor they could not maintain their grievance petitions which were liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has dismissed the petitions of the appellants, hence, the present appeal. As the facts and circumstances in both these appeals are similar and common, I would therefore decide both these appeals by this single decision.

6. I have heard Mr. S. A. Channa, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment had contended that as the appellants had failed to properly serve the mandatory grievance notice upon the employer, therefore, the grievance petitions were not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is an admitted position on the record that the appellants had not served their grievance notices upon the employers on their correct and proper postal address. It is an admitted position on behalf of the appellants that the postal address of the respondent establishment i.e. S.L.M. (Pak.) Limited Karachi, is 6‑University Road, Karachi" while the postal address of sister Concern i.e. Hayee Sons Ltd. is at "Abdul Hayee Chambers, Dockyard Road, Karachi" and the appellants had themselves admitted that they had sent their grievance notices at Abdul Hayee Chambers, Dockyard Road, Karachi. Therefore, it is crystal clear that before filing the grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before the Labour Court, the appellants had failed to serve their mandatory grievance notices upon the employers on their correct and proper address, hence, in view of this legal position, they cannot maintain grievance petitions before the Labour Court, which are liable to be dismissed.

6. As regards the merits of the case, it is fully established from the enquiry proceedings that the appellants had deliberately disobeyed the lawful orders of their superiors and thus committed a gross misconduct liable to be dismissed from service. Mr. S. A Channa, the learned Advocate for the appellants has no case) in support of the appellants. I would, therefore, hold that there is nothing wrong with the impugned orders and I would maintain they same.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeals of the appellants stand dismissed. M.Y.H./1005/Lb.S?????? Appeals dismissed.