SHAMIM AHMAD KHAN vs ASSISTANT ENGINEER PHONES, DIGITAL (INTERNAL), DEFENCE EXCHANGE, (PTCL), LAHORE and 5 others

' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this Labour appeal are that the appellant joined PTCL as clerk BS-5 in the year 1973 was promoted as telephone operator BS-7 in 1989 but through order dated 4-8-1999 he was dismissed from service.

2. The only grievance in the present appeal is that the learned Labour Court wrongly dismissed the appellant's petition through judgment dated 29-9-2007 and the appellant prays for setting aside of the same and remand the case to the learned labour Court for deciding afresh on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent, has filed departmental appeal and then invoked the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal but due to the judgment of Muhammad Mubeen-ulIslam and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 his appeal was abated and then he approached the learned Labour Court but the learned Labour Court dismissed the petition on wrong premises holding that as the petitioner did not serve the respondent a grievance notice, which otherwise a mandatory requirement, his petition before the learned Labour Court is not maintainable. The fact that the petitioner has brought its grievance into the notice of respondent through a departmental appeal and it is well settled law that the departmental appeal can be termed as grievance notice and vice versa.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned judgment with vehemence and relied on a judgment reported as Mir Jaffar v. Government of N.-W.F.P.

Transport Department through Secretary and another 2000 PLC 472 and Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.

Through Attorneys v. Syed Nasir Abbas Naqvi 2003 PLC 20 wherein the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the departmental appeal could not be treated as grievance notice and further submits that the learned Labour Court decided the case in its true perspective and cannot be interfered with through the present Labour appeal.

4. Arguments heard; record perused.

5. Suffice it to say that the grievance notice means "to bring into the notice of employer the very grievance which the aggrieved party intends to get it redressed" irrespective of the fact that whether it is named as departmental appeal, representation, review/grievance notice and it is well-settled law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that civil revision can be treated as R.F.A., R.S.A. And vice versa, when this position is unambiguous in the matter of litigations before other courts then how an aggrieved person can be non-suited on this hyper-technical objection when admittedly the aggrieved person had already brought his grievance into the notice of his employer.

6. In the present case, admittedly the appellant filed departmental appeal, which is not denied by the respondents; hence the dismissal of his petition by the learned Labour Court cannot be held a justified one. So far the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, both the judgments are of Labour Appellate Tribunal and are not binding on this Court.

Accordingly the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside, the appeal is allowed, and the case is remanded to the learned Labour Court for afresh decision on merits particularly when there is ample law laid down by the apex Court that "while granting relief the Court can dispense with the technicalities and may would the relief according to the circumstances and requirements" PLD 1985 SC 46 and 1998 SCMR 1618. Even the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in another case held that non-suiting on technicalities should not be allowed PLD 1995 SC 406. In another case reported as 1995 SCMR 435, the apex Court held "aggrieved person cannot be refused relief on a mere technical ground." In addition to this I may refer another judgment wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held "if there is any ambiguity, construction which is favourable to individual should be adopted" PLD 1995 SC 546=1995 PLC (C.S.) 1191 and 1998 SCMR 1794.

7. As held in the preceding paras that grievance notice means "to bring into the notice of employer the grievances", nothing more nothing less, then only by writing a word departmental appeal/representation instead of grievance notice, the purpose of law shall be held to have been served.