Faiz Ali Vs United Bank Limited

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

W.P No.1462-P/2024 with CM No.3427-P/2025, No.529-P/2026

Faiz Ali vs The United Bank Limited through its President, 8th Floor State Life Building No.1, 1.1 Chandrigar Road Karachi, and others

Date of hearing: 14.04.2026

For petitioner(s) Mr. Zia uddin Khan, Advocate.

For Respondents Mr. Alam Zeb Khan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

IJAZ ANWAR, J. This Writ petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that on acceptance of this Writ Petition, the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2023 and impugned order dated 22.06.2023 of both the learned forum/commission is illegal, unlawful and void ab-initio may kindly be set-aside and the case shall be decided on merit in accordance with law.”

2.In essence, the petitioner was appointed on 03.06.1990 against the post of Assistant and served the respondent institution with diligence and to the satisfaction of his superiors, remaining posted at various stations without any adverse record. It is averred that he was, subsequently, transferred from Cantt Branch to Mall Road Branch of United Bank Limited, whereafter his services were illegally terminated and he was compulsorily retired vide order dated 29.09.2021 without lawful justification.

Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a grievance application before the competent authority, which remained unattended. Thereafter, he filed a grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission, Peshawar, which was dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide order dated 22.06.2023. The petitioner, then, assailed the said order before the Appellate Bench of the Commission at Islamabad, which too was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2023. The petitioner, being dissatisfied and aggrieved by both the impugned orders, has assailed the same through the instant writ petition.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.Perusal of the record reveals that petitioner was proceeded departmentally and was compulsory retired from service vide office order dated 29.09.2022, against which, petitioner submitted a grievance notice under the heading application and thereafter, on 03.10.2022 submitted his grievance application before the NIRC Bench, at Peshawar.

The Single Bench of NIRC vide Order dated 22.06.2023, dismissed the grievance petition summarily, on the ground that an appeal submitted to the President of the Bank cannot be considered as grievance notice under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and that besides the notice should have been conveyed to the Appointing Authority. The Full Bench of the NIRC, vide the impugned Order dated 29.11.2023 also maintained the same.

5.Admittedly, the case of the petitioner was not decided on merit, but on the ground that the grievance notice has not been properly served.

Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 provides for the redressal of the grievances of a

workman, there is a pre-condition of serving a grievance notice before approaching the Labour Court by submitting a grievance petition. Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, being relevant to the present controversy is reproduced for reference:-

“33. Redress of individual grievances.

(1)A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent within ninety days of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises.

(2)Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker.

(3)Where a worker brings his grievance to the notice of his employer through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent, the employer shall, within seven days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the shop steward or as the case may be the collective bargaining agent.

(4)If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in sub-section (2) or, as the case may be sub-section (3), or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or the shop steward may take the matter to his collective bargaining agent or to the Commission or, as the case may be, the collective bargaining agent may

take the matter to the Commission, and where the matter is taken to the Commission, it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were an industrial dispute: Provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the Commission shall do so within a period of sixty days from the date of the communication of the employer or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-section (2), or sub-section (3), as the case may be.

(5)In adjudicating and determining a grievance under sub-section (4), the Commission shall go into all the facts of the case and pass such orders as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(6)If a decision under sub-section (4) or an order under sub-section (5) given by the Commission or a decision in an appeal against such a decision or order is not given effect to or complied with within seven days or within the period specified in such order or decision, the defaulter shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to seventy-five thousand rupees, or with both.

(7)No person shall be prosecuted under sub-section (6) except on a complaint in writing— (a) by the workman if the order or decision in his favour is not implemented within the period specified therein; or (b) by the Commission if an order or decision thereof is not complied with.

(8)For the purposes of this section, workers having common grievance arising out of a common cause of action may make a joint application to the Commission.

(9)Any collective bargaining agent or any employer may apply to the Commission for the enforcement of

any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement.

(10)There shall be a Tripartite Council for review of grievances of workers in the Islamabad Capital Territory comprising not less than three members each of the workers, employers and the Government:

Provided that the representatives of the workers and the employers shall be nominated by the Government after consultation with registered trade unions and employers’ organizations to be notified in the Official Gazette.”

The receipt of appeal/grievance application has not been denied by the respondents. Now, it is to be seen, whether service of such appeal/application is sufficient compliance of the provision of Section 33 of the ibid Act. In the instant case, petitioner has conveyed to the respondents, the application/appeal against his compulsory retirement from service within the period specified in Section 33 of the Act.

6.While going through the case law on the subject, this Court is of the view that no specific form of submission of the grievance notice has been provided in the scheme of Labour Laws. The purpose of service of such notice is an intimation to the employer about initiation of the proceedings before the labour forum. Besides, an opportunity to

the employer to reconsider its decision if it requires interference. Similarly, while going through Section 33 of the Act, it clarifies that the legislature has not complicated the service of such notice, because a worker can submit such notice either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent. The intention behind such leverage is that usually such workers are illiterate and they do not know the niceties / technicalities of submitting such notices, therefore, non-suiting such litigant on the basis of conveying notice to a wrong authority would be in fact against the intention of the legislature in framing this Section. The law on the above referred point is very rich, reference can be made to some of the cases reported as “Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co,. Ltd., Karachi and 3 others Vs Habib ur Rehman and 2 others” (1982 SCMR 651), and “United Bank Limited (UBL) through its president and others Vs. Jamil Ahmed and others” (2024 PLC 20). Similarly, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of “Pak Telecom Mobile Limited Vs Muhammad Atif Bilal” (2024 SCMR 719), held as under:-

“Firstly, he can directly approach the employer in sitting within 90 days of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises, and the employer on receipt of such notice by the aggrieved ‘worker’ ha to communicate within 15 days, the decision on the said notice.. In both cases, where the employer fails to communicate its decision in the prescribed stipulated time or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the ‘worker’.. may approach NIRC for the redressal for his grievance.

7.Recently, a Division Bench of Hon’ble Sindh High Court in case of “Mir Muhammad Brohi Vs Federation of Pakistan & others” while deciding the similar matter held as follows:

“19. Under Section 33 of the IRA sending of the grievance notice to the employer is mandatory, purpose of giving noticed is to intimate the employer of intimating legal proceedings, if the employer redresses the grievance the need of filing a grievance petition before Tribunal may not arise. Since no any particular form or proforma of grievance notice has been provided under the law, therefore it may be in the form of appeal, representation or review. The Court file further revealed that petitioner sent a notice dated 21.10.2019 in the form of departmental appeal, which was produced in evidence and exhibited as Mark M. The perusal of the Court file revealed that the petitioner also sent a separate grievance notice to the Employer Company and such a grievance notice along with Courier Receipt dated 21.10.2019 and its delivery status was produced in evidence and exhibited as Mark N, the copies of grievance notice and courier receipts are available at page 89 of the Memo of Petition. The Employer has not

disputed the receipt of such appeal, and notice meaning thereby that the intimation on the part of petitioner/employee was duly sent to the Employer for redress of his grievance, when gone unheeded, the petitioner filed the grievance petition.”

Besides, the President of the Bank is the main employer of the Bank and the bifurcation of the appointing authority is usually made either under the certain circular or the regulations, if any, applicable in the Bank, which are not public documents nor available for the lower grade employees. Thus, where the petitioner has served a notice within the same hierarchy of the Bank and such notice does not lie to that authority, it should have been redirected to the appointing authority who could have considered such grievance notice. The superior Courts of this country have always favoured adjudication of disputes on merit rather non-suiting litigants on mere technicalities. The superior Courts of this country are consistent on the point that where even a departmental appeal/representation has been addressed to a wrong forum, it should have been redirected / forwarded to the concerned forum instead of throwing such appeal/representation as non-maintainable. Reference can be made to the

case of “2008 PLC (CS) 1302”, “2006 SCMR 86”, “2008 PLC (CS) 203”, and “2005 PLC (CS) 1402.”

Likewise, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled “Government of N.W.F.P Vs Dr. Husain Ahmad Haroon" (PLJ 2002 SC 1294), decided as follows:

“Departmental appeal/representation addressed to Governor instead of Secretary Health against whom respondents were agitating would be deemed to be departmental appeal in as much as, the same was sent ultimately to department of respondents and Section officer instead of advising them to address the same to proper forum was duty bound to place their representations before his senior/secretary.”

8.For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that petitioner has made sufficient compliance of Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, orders of the learned Single Member NIRC, Bench and Full Bench of NIRC are against the law and are accordingly struck down and the matter is remanded back to the Single Bench of NIRC, for decision of the case of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

9.This writ petition is allowed in the above

terms.

Announced

Senior Puisne Judge

Judge DB Mr. Justice Ijaz Anwar, and Mr. Justice Inam Ullah Khan, Hon’ble Judges Amjad Ali,