1986 PLC 1168

ORDER

In this matter, the objection raised by Mr. Humayun, the counsel for the respondent is of substantial nature and the Court fully agrees that individual grievance can only be filed by the worker himself. In this respect reference is made to decision of Shamsi Cloth and General A Mills v. Shamsi Cloth and General Mills Workers Union of the Hon'blel Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sind 1986 P L C 880.

2. The Court, therefore, is of the view that Collective Bargaining Agent cannot filed application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. the section speaks of individual grievance to be taken cognizance by the labour Court.

3. It is next contended by Mr. Humayun that notice by the Collective Bargaining Agent is not in confirmity with the requirement of section 25‑A. The contention of Mr. Humayun the counsel for the respondent is well‑founded after referring to section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The Court is also of the view that by this time through number of decisions in Labour Court litigants are well‑aware of the period of limitation and the notices sent by the workers individually under section 25‑A, I.R.O. Of course nothing prevents the worker to come for the redress of the legal grievance, as it is contended that malik allowance was not paid, but the worker is to cross the hurdle of the time limitation and the cause of action in future application.

The application accordingly is dismissed on point of law.

A. E.

Application dismissed.