Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑9 of 1982, decided on 20th January, 1982.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. 1 (4) (a)‑Applicability of Ordinance ‑Number of workmen Whether more than 20‑To be established by party asserting same‑Petitioner claiming number of workmen more than 20‑No mention to that effect in his affidavit before Labour Court‑Claim made through bare assertion in cross‑examination without any other evidence‑Employer ‑ refuting such assertion on basis of evidence of Labour Officer of Labour Department‑Labour Court, held, that having not established that number of workmen was 20 or more grievance petition against alleged illegal termination of service was not maintainable' because of inapplicability of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 ‑Decision of Labour Court, in circum stances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Ch. M. Maarif for Appellant.

Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Third Labour' Court, given on 14th December, 1981, dismissing his grievance petition on the ground that the Standing Orders were‑ not applicable to his employment and hence he was not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. The appellant, on 18th March, 1981, filed a grievance petition before the learned Fifth Labour Court alleging that on 31st January, 1981 his services were orally and unlawfully terminated by the respondent establishment and praying for re‑instatement in service together with a total amount of Rs.10,980 on account of, Gratuity, Overtime Allowance, Dearness Allowance and notice pay. The grievance petition of the appellant was resisted by the respondent‑establishment on the grounds that it is a shop to which the provisions of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance are applicable and not the Standing Orders and that further the appellant was not the employee of the shop of the respondent. It was specifically asserted by the respondent‑establish ment that the number of persons employed in the establishment had never exceeded ten.

3. The appellant, in his affidavit before the learned Labour Court did not state what was the number of the employees is the respondent establishment but in his cross‑examination he claimed that there were forty or fifty persons employed therein. He, however, failed to give the names of any such persons or to give the designation, description of the types of the posts of job to or on which they were employed. None of the persons said to have been employed in the respondent‑establishment were examined by the appellant. 1n fact the sole evidence which the appellant has been able to muster on this point is his bare assertion made in his cross‑examination. On the other hand, the respondent examined Javed Saeed, one of the sons of Shaikh Muhammad Saeed, the proprietor of the respondent‑factory and the Labour Officer. Central Division, Malik Munawwar Ahmed. Javed Saeed stated that his father was dead since the past two and ‑half years and he was now looking after the res pondent‑establishment. He further stated that originally the respondent factory was functioning at B‑37, S.I.T.E., from where it was shifted to 625X, Block 2, P.E.C.H.S. in the year 1969‑70 and that since 1977 the said factory was closed on account of the fact that his father was suffer ing from hypertension and heart disease. In support of his contention he produced medical certificate from Dr. Hassan Aziz and a letter, dated 7th August, 1978, from the Joint Director Labour (Headquarters) to the Joint Director (Central Division) informing the latter, that the occupier has given intimation of closure of the Commercial Optical Company and necessary action may be taken in the matter under intimation to him. The witness. Javed Saeed, further stated before the learned Labour Court that the number of monthly‑rated employees in the respondent‑establish ment was only three, including the appellant, while the number of daily wage workers never exceeded six or seven. In support of his contention he produced the wage registers of the monthly‑rated workers for the year 1977‑78 which indicate that in all there used to be three monthly‑rated workers in the establishment during the years 1977 and 1978. The pay ment registers bear signatures of the appellant on revenue stamps acknow ledging the receipt of monthly wages. Authenticity of these registers, thus, cannot be challenged. No doubt, the respondent‑establishment has failed to produce the register of the daily‑rated workers but on the other hand, there is no 'evidence to show that the number of these daily rated workers, including the three monthly‑rated workers, was not less than twenty, and on the other hand no application seems to have been filed on behalf of the appellant for the production of the vouchers or other record relating to the employment and wages of the daily rated workers. It is, thus, not established that the number of total workmen in the respondent establishment at relevant time was not less than twenty.

4. The Labour Officer, Malik Munawwar Ahmed, has produced a letter, dated 17th July, 1978, from S. M. Saeed, the proprietor of the res pondent‑establishment, addressed to the Joint Director Labour, stating that he had vacated the factory at 624‑Block 2, P.E.C.H.S Karachi. He has further stated that prior to vacating of the factory by the proprietor it was inspected by the then Labour Officer, Mr. Sabir Khokar, on 7th June, 1978 and at that time the number .of total workmen employed therein was 12. As such even according to the report o(' the Labour Officer in June, 1978, the total number of employees in the factory was much less than twenty.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of opinion that the , learned Labour Court rightly took the view that the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable as it had not been established that the .4 total number of workmen employed in the respondent‑establishment was twenty or more. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine.

Appeal 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.