Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR.‑161 of 1977, heard on 20th July 1977.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Application for re‑instatement‑Contention that applicants were merely casual workers‑‑‑No proof of being permanent employee‑Application, in circumstances, rightly dismissed by Labour Court‑Such persons, held, neither have right to continue in service nor could seek relief claimed.

M. L. Shahani for Appellants.

Hyder Raza Naqvi and Saukat H. Zubedi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th July 1977.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.

2. The present appellants are 32. It has been claimed by them that they were in the employment of respondent No. I, Gokal Shipping and Trading Corporation Ltd., since January, 1974 employed for the purpose of repairing the ships. Subsequently in the middle of May/June, 1974 they were transferred to respondent No. 2, A. K. Engineering Company which was said to be either the same concern or sister concern of respondent No. 1. In the month of November, 1975 their services were orally terminated. They served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court under sec tion 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance for re‑instatement.

3. The application was resisted and it was denied that the appellants were permanent and confirmed employees. It was, however, pleaded that the appellants might have worked as casual workers for a day or two when ever required and they were never employed permanently.

4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court entertained the view that the appellants had failed to establish that they were in the employment of the respondents or the two concerns were owned by the same person or were the sister concerns. Consequently, he dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I entirely agree with the finding of the learned Presiding Officer. The appellants failed to produce a single document to establish their case. How ever, photostat copy of the letter dated 23rd October, 1974 was produced but it was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the original was not produced. In this connection it was pointed out by the learned counsel that an application was made to the Labour Court to send for the original, but it was not produced and, therefore, the photostat copy was admissible in evidence. Of course, a photostat copy may be admissible if the original is withheld by the Management if called upon to produce it but in the present case it was clearly stated by the witness for the respondents that there was no such letter on their file. Thus it was not established that any such letter was issued by the respondents. It is not understood how Photo stat copy was obtained if no such letter was in existence. It clearly shows that the letter was fabricated. It was not proved by any reliable evidence that any such letter was issued by the respondents. I have already observed that there is no document to support the fact that the appellants were in the employment of either of the respondents. They may have been casual workers employed whenever any emergency arose, but this did not give any right to continue in the service nor they are entitled to seek relief under the Industrial Relations Ordinance or the Standing Orders Ordinance. The evidence of the appellants that they were permanent workers cannot be accepted. The argument of the learned counsel that there was violation of Standing Orders 15(3) and 11 (a) deserves no consideration in view of the aforesaid reasons.

6. In result the appeal is 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.