Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑653 of 1980, heard on 12th October, 1980.

----S. 25‑A‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑Grievance notice to employer‑Grievance notice through Advocate‑Invalid‑Proceedings based upon such notice beyond jurisdiction of Labour Court -Representation for relief other than that asked for before Labour Court‑Cannot be treated as grievance notice.

P L D 1980 S C 89 fol.

A. Q. Malik for Appellant.

This appeal is directed against decision of the learned Fifth Labour Court given on 20‑8‑1980, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that grievance notice was not given by the workman himself but by and through his Advocate. In support of the decision, the learned Labour Court has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in P L D 1980 S C 89. The Supreme Court in the reported decision has specifically held that a grievance notice through an Advocate is invalid and such notice must be given either by the workman himself or through his shop steward or the C. B. A. It is not disputed by Mr. A. Q. Malik, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the grievance notice was given through an Advocate. The learned counsel, however, sought td argue that the signature of the appellant was also borne on the grievance notice. A true copy of the grievance notice was produced by the appellant before the learned Labour Court. It does not support the contention of the learned counsel as it shows that the grievance notice was signed only by the Advocate. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the appellant earlier had made a representation to the Management and this may be considered as a grievance notice. The said representation is not on record, but there is a letter, dated 16‑5‑1978, from the respondent‑Company to the appellant, referring to his application, dated 13‑5‑1978, wherein he is said to have requested that his‑ dismissal orders may be altered to resignation. This application also cannot be considered as a grievance notice because the relief claimed now by, the appellant is wholly different from the prayer that he had made in the above application. It was also contended by the learned counsel that inasmuch as no specific objection was taken by the respondent‑Company in their reply statement to the grievance notice, they are deemed to have waived objection to any irregularity in it. It may, however, be pointed out that the foundation of the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court in cases under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, is the service of proper grievance notice open the employer. Since no service of proper grievance notice upon the employer has been effected in the present case the appellant's grievance petition was not maintainable and the learned Labour Court clearly had no jurisdiction to proceed with the same.

2. For the reasons stated by me above I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.