1988 PLP 411 (PLC)

Appellant in person. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 31‑5‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. ‑V at Karachi who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A I. R.O. 1979.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been permanently working as Bell Boy in the respondent Hotel since last five years and as on 6th and 7th of July, 1985. He was sick, therefore, he could not attend to his duties. He further claimed that 7th July 1985 was a weekly rest day for him, but, when on 8‑7‑1985, he reported for duty he was not allowed to enter into the Hotel premises and thus was put under suspension. The appellant further claimed that neither a proper charge‑sheet was issued nor a lawful, impartial, and reasonable enquiry was conducted so that he could defend himself. The appellant, however, claimed that though on his own request fresh enquiries were made as he was not satisfied with the conduct of the said enquiry and finally on 21‑8‑1985 he participated in the fresh enquiry, yet, he was dismissed from service with effect from 24‑8‑1985. Thereafter the appellant submitted his grievance notice and subsequently his grievance petition therefore the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent Hotel resisted the petition on the ground firstly that as the grievance petition was not submitted by the appellant himself in the Labour Court, therefore, under the Law as well as the Authorities, it was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed only on this legal objection. Secondly, on merits it was contended that as the charge of misconduct was fully and properly established in a lawful and impartial domestic enquiry in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself, therefore, he could not sustain grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order. hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard the appellant who is present in person and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that from the examination o the record of the Labour Court, it is abundently, proved that the appellant has not filed his grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969 and instead of him, his Advocate presented the same before the learned Labour Court. As per settled law, it is mandatory for an aggrieved person to himself sign his grievance petition and to personally present the same before the Labour Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court placing his reliance on a Decision of this Tribunal dated 1‑2‑1987 in Appeal No. KAR‑634/1981 P L C page 760, 1982 P L C page 107; 1985 P L C page 314 and PLD 1980 (S. C.) at page 80; had very rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant as being not maintainable. Thus, the view taken by the learned Labour Court on this legal objection in, the impugned order cannot be interfered with and it is hereby maintained. As regards the merits of the case, the appellant has also no case in view of the admitted position that on his own request, the respondent Hotel has held domestic enquiries on different dates in which he too participated. Therefore the appellant has failed to establish any mala fide to the respondent Hotel against him.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and it is accordingly maintained. The present appeal is dismissed in limine. A. E. /1119/Lb.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.