1982 PLP 389 (PLC)

2. I have heard Mr. A. Q. M. Shafiq‑ul‑Islam, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Rafi‑ud‑Din Babar, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the entire material available on the record.

3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant Corpora tion is that no grievance notice as required under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was served upon the employer by the respondent. This objection was also raised before the Labour Court, which in paragraph 5 of the impugned decision, has disposed of the same in the following words: "The respondent has also objected that no grievance notice was served on him. The petitioner has placed a copy of grievance notice Exh. P. 3 on the file and reply to this notice as Exh. P.

4. These two documents falsify the objection of the respondent." The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon Exhs. P‑3 and P‑

4. Exh. P. 3 is addressed as under :‑ The heading of Exh. P. 3 is as under :‑‑ Further in the heading it is stated that this was an appeal against the order of dismissal passed by District Manager, Punjab Urban Trans port Corporation, Islamabad. In the body of this document also the word has been clearly written. At the end the prayer is as under:‑ Exh. P. 4 is the reply to the above appeal. The body of this document reads as under :‑‑ "Your appeal has been considered and after ‑giving you an opportunity of personal hearing it has been rejected by the Director (Operation) Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Lahore." A mere perusal of these documents Exhs. P‑3 and P‑4 makes it clear that Exh. P‑3 was the departmental appeal to the Director (Operation) filed by the respondent against the order of his dismissal passed by District Manager, Punjab Urban Transport Corporation and Exh. P‑4 is the reply to that appeal given by the Personnel and Welfare Officer, Punjab Urban Transport Corporation on behalf of the Director (Opera tion), Punjab Urban Transport Corporation, Lahore.

4. The next question which falls for consideration is whether the departmental appeal (Exh. P‑3) to the appellate Authority has been rightly treated as grievance notice under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969. I have already held in Joseph Bhatti's case (1980 P L C 234) that a departmental appeal before the appellate authority cannot be treated as grievance notice under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

5. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the judgment of Joseph Bhatti's case, this appeal is accepted and the impugned decision is set aside. Consequently, the grievance petition filed by the respondent under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 before the Labour Court is hereby dismissed being incompetent. Appeal allowed.