PLJ 2020 Quetta 49 (DB)
Present: MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR AND ABDULLAH BALOCH , JJ.
DEEN MUHAMMAD--Petitioner
versus
LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA and others --Respondents
C.P. No. 1014 of 2017, decided on 13.5.2019.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199 --Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, S. 41--Appointment as helper --Issuance of charge sheet --
Allegation of misconduct --Conducting of inquiry--Grievance notice--Dismissal from service --Application --
Allow ed--Appeal --Challenge to--Bare perusal of grievance notice reflects that same was not issued against order
of dismissal dated 15th July, 2016 rather same was issued against order wherein services of petitioner were
suspended by management; even otherwise, whole record is silent with regard to issuance of grievance notice
against dismissal order --Foundation of labour cases mainly revolved around grievance notice and without issuing
of grievance notice whole superstructure will automatically falls --Likewise, in case in hand petitioner has failed
comply with mandatory requirements of law, nowhere, petitioner had issued a grievance notice against his
dismissal from service, appellate Court has rightly accepted appeal of employer against petitioner, judgment
passed by appellate Court is neither perverse nor ridiculous to warrant interference by this Court and ease laws
relied upon by appellate Court are also relevant for just decision of case--Petition was dismissed. [Pp. 51 & 55]
A & B
Syed Ayaz Zahoor , Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Abdul Musawir, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 24.4.2019.
JUDGMENT
Abdullah Baloch , J.--This Constitutional Petition has been directed against the judgment dated 30th
August. 2017 (hereinafter referred as “the i mpugned judgment” ) passed by the Labour Appellate
Tribunal Balochistan Quetta (hereinafter referred as “the appellate Court” ) whereby the appeal of the Respondent
No. 3 was allowed and order dated 6th June, 2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, IIIrd Labou r Court. Balochislan at Hub (hereinafter referred as “the trial Court” ) was set aside, with the
following prayer:
“It is accordingly respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept the
petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by declaring:
(a) That the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2017 massed by learned Labour Appellate
Tribunal Balochistan Quetta (Respondent No. 1) is not only illegal, improper, but is also bad in the
eye of law, liable to be declared as totally lawful authority and jurisdiction and of no legal
consequences.
b) That after setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2017 passed by Respondent No. 1 the
respondent No. 3 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service with all back benefits with
effect from his removal from service till the dale of acceptance of this petition by
this Hon’ble Court.
c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Relevant facts for disposal of the instant petition appear that the petitioner filed an application under
Section 41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 for re -instatement of his services, with the averments that
the petitioner was initially appointed in Cera -e-Noor Company on 22nd April. 2009 as Helper on probationary basis
and thereafter due to his outstanding performance his service was confirmed as permanent employee on 15lh June.
2000, but due to stoppage of company’s work from 2012 again opened in the year 2013, the petitioner again joined
the company on the same post on 11th April, 2013. It is further averred that in the Holy month of Ramadan the
petitioner went to discuss with company ma nager for his two brothers on vacant posts and he also agreed, but on
13th June, 2013 the respondent had become annoyed and abused him, also used to tease & torture him without
lawful reasons, ultimately he was served with a charge sheet of lame allegation s. That on 14th June, 2016 when the
petitioner reached at company’s gate on usual timing, the security guard at main gate stopped him by stating that
there is ban against the entry of petitioner in the company by factory management, thereafter, the petitioner was sit
at the gate for about four hours, but he was not allowed; after issuance of charge sheet he submitted his explanation
in respect of allegation and with the consent of management both the parties agreed to also submit an excuse of the matter, th ereafter he sent a grievance notice through counsel dated 16th July, 2016, but of no avail and the
respondent sent dismissal letter with reply.
3. The application was contested by the respondents by means of filing written statements wherein raised
legal o bjections with regard to non- maintainability of the application.
4. After framing of issues and recording evidence pro & contra the application of petitioner was allowed.
5. Being aggrieved the Respondent No. 3 assailed the order passed by the learned tria l Court before the
appellate Court, the appeal of respondent was allowed vide impugned judgment as mentioned hereinabove
in para No. 1
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely, which reveals that the petitioner
was employee of the Respondent No. 3 during the course of his service due to misconduct he was initially issued a
charge sheet by the employer, which was replied by the petitioner, being dissatisfied an inquiry was conducted by the management and the petitioner was giv en a fair opportunity of hearing, since he had admitted his guilt during the
course of inquiry conducted by the management the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct, as such, he was dismissed from service vide letter dated 15th July, 2016. The petitioner instead of being aggrieved from the
aforesaid order issued a grievance notice through his counsel Mr. Faisal Karim Ronja , Advocate on 16
th July, 2016
against the order of suspension i.e. order daled 23rd June, 2016, which was also replied by the Respondent No. 3 on
22nd July. 2016.
7. Bare perusal of grievance notice reflects that the same was not issued against the order of dismissal
dated 15th July. 2016 rather the same was issued against the order dated 13th June. 2016; wherein the services of petitioner were suspended by the management; even otherwise, the whole record is silent with regard to issuance of
grievance notice against the dismissal order dated 16th July, 2016 the learned appellate Court has rightly observed
that:
“9. The crucial poi nt to decide the fate of the controversy between the parties is the grievance notice which
has to be seen in the light of related provisions of law that whether any workman can serve grievance
notice through counsel, which point is involved in this case.
To explain the same the relevant provisions of law are necessary to be seen.
The BIRA 2010 Section 41 (2) clearly mentions that, when a worker himself bring his grievance to the notice of employer, the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice,
communicate his decision in writing to worker.
Word “himself” used in the sec/ion has no other interpretation except workman himself and the required period to approach the Court after service of gri evance notice is also limited for 15 days, the
above referred section bounded the applicant/respondent to serve grievance notice by himself not through
counsel.
In present matter, the case was not maintainable as the grievance notice was served t hrough counsel
which is against the mandatory law.
The Hon’ble High Court of Balochistan in its judgment dated 03- 03-2015 reported in 2015 PLC 220,
the relevant portion is as tinder:
“(b) Balochistan Industrial Relations Act (X of 2010) --
----S. 41--Grievance notice, issuance of --Requirements --Workers himself was bound to send grievance
notice to the employer.”
10. It is also worthwhile to mention here that a valid grievance petition is a pre requisite to invoke the
jurisdiction of Labour Court and grievance petition not fulfill required condition prescribed under law is
not maintainable, reliance is placed on
i. 1980 PLD (SC) 80
ii. 1980 PLC 1229
iii. 1985 PLC 1068
Another point which was made base for accepting of petition of the applicant/respondent by the trial
Court, holding that the inquiry report is totally silent with regard of penalties either major or minor.
When there is an admission by a party then there is no need of formal inquir y as the applicant
respondent rendered unconditional apology, therefore, conducting of inquiry or otherwise is not material .
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held in its Judgment dated 12- 03-1999 reported in 2002
SCMR 684 the relevant portion is as under:
“In presence of admission of his guilt by civil servant, there was no need of holding inquiry
against him.”
Further reliance can also be placed on: 1993 SCMR 956”.
8. Since the foundation of labour eases mainly revolved around the grievance notice and without issuing
of grievance notice the whole superstructure will automatically falls. Likewise, in the case in hand the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of law, nowhere, the petitioner had issued a gri evance notice
against his dismissal from service, the learned appellate Court has rightly accepted the appeal of employer against
the petitioner, the judgment passed by the appellate Court is neither perverse nor ridiculous to warrant interference
by this Court and the ease laws relied upon by the appellate Court are also relevant for just decision of the case.
The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.