1977 PLP 391 (PLC)

Ss. 25‑A (1), (2) & (3) & 36‑D‑Service of grievance notice‑Plea of non‑service of grievance notice raised for first time in appeal on contention that Junior Labour Court could not assume jurisdiction in absence of same‑Respondent claiming having served such notice --Point neither raised before nor examined by Junior Labour Court Case, in circumstances, remanded, due to inherent legal implication, for evidence on such point. Nasim Silk Industry v. 5th Sind Labour Court P L J 1974 Kar. 80 gel. Nasir Ahmad for Appellant. Muhammad Amin for Respondents. An appeal has been filed by the Managing Director, United Textile Mills Limited, Multan, against the order of the Junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 12th February 1973 whereby eight workers, namely. Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Sharif, Munir Ahmad, Amin‑ud- Din, Muhammad Yamin, Inam‑ul‑Haq, and Inayat Masih were held entitled to gratuities, ancillary benefits if any, admissible under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, read with the Standing Orders Ordinance for the whole length of their service in consequence ‑of their resignations. In the present appeal a fundamental question has been raised on behalf of the appellant Management that the respondent workers did not serve the Management any grievance notice required under section 25‑A (1), (2), (3), which was a condition precedent to initiate the proceedings in the Junior Labour Court. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that no such question was raised in the learned Lower Court nor it finds mention in the memorandum of appeal and therefore the contention cannot be raised at this late stage. The learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded that in the absence of this mandatory notice the learned Lower Court could not assume jurisdiction adjudicate upon the dispute and on that score the objection being purely of legal nature can be raised at any stage. He has relied upon Nasim Silk Industry v. 5th Sind Labour Court (P L J 1974 Kar. 80). It was ruled in this authority that grievance notice was a necessary step for a worker to invoke the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court and any such omission in this behalf disentitles him to come to the Court. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the necessary grievance notices were in fact given to the Management and this is why no such objec tion was raised en behalf of the Management at the trial stage. I have gone through relevant file and the service of grievacce notice has not been found mentioned in the evidence nor has it been denied by the Management. The proceedings in the learned Lower Court appear to have been concluded hastily making a short shrift of the whole matter which call for fair elucidation in this behalf. Though the case is pretty old one and should not ordinarily be remanded for fresh decision but the situation created under the circum stances pertains to inherent legal implications of the matter before me and there is no alternative other than that the case be remanded for the clarifica tion of this point. It has been pressed on behalf of the respondents that the notices were served by them and they can prove the service of such notices if they are afforded the opportunity to prove their cases. The appeal being accepted the case is sent to the learned Lower Court with the direction that necessary evidence for the service of notices may be recorded by it and a fresh decision given on the merits of the case. It is further directed that the case should be given priority over other cases in view of the same having already become over due for final adjudication and disposal.