1986 PLC 177

DECISION

This appeal is from an order passed by Sind Labour Court No. 111, Karachi, on 6‑11‑1984.

2. The facts enumerated from the available record are that the appellant Sultan Ahmed claimed that he was employed with the respondent as a Grader drawing Rs.700 per month. He served in the respondent -establishment for four years. However, on 3‑11‑1982, when he reported for duty he was refused. He claimed that the management was annoyed with him because he demanded bonus and other facilities. His services were terminated without any order in writing. Hence, the management had violated the requirement of Standing‑ Order 12 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He filed the grievance application.

3. The respondents denied the facts that he was ever an employee in their concern. Thus, the grievance application is not maintainable.

4. In the Labour Court the appellant filed his affidavit and was cross‑examined by Mustafa Zaidi, the Factory Manager. Mustafa Zaidi also filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of the respondent's establish ment.

5. The appeal was heard. In this appeal, only one point is got to be decided. There is a claim of the appellant that he has served the respondents for four years. The respondents denied this fact and circumstance that he was nowhere shown an employee nor did he serve the establishment. The burden of proof was essentially on the appellant. Mustafa Zaidi, the Factory Manager deposed that the appellant was not in their employment. Mustafa Zaidi maintained that in their establishment, Identity cards were issued to the workers and the Attendance Cards were issued to the workers employed on daily wages. In addition, the workers were given Social Security Cards and Old‑Age Benefits Cards. However, the appellant could not produce his appointment letter nor any of the cards as mentioned by Mustafa Zaidi. The appellant did not summon Attendance Register or Payment Register.

6. The appellant claimed in evidence that letter of appointment was not given to him. He could not say on which date on month or the year, he was appointed by the respondents. He also admitted that he has no other documentary evidence in support of his claim. The appellant also admitted that lie was not given Social Security Cards or the Employees' Old Age Benefits Scheme Cards. The Attendance Register was maintained by the respondent‑company. His name nowhere transpires in the Attendance Register. The appellant, however, relied on one gate‑pass Exh. 1‑A produced by him during the cross‑examination. This gate‑pass was disbelieved to be genuine by the Labour Court. No value can be attached to such document. Gate‑pass was not officially issued to the appellant. In the opinion of the Labour Court that a blank pass was picked up by the appellant or, which he wrote his name and on the backside two telephone numbers were written. These telephone numbers were jelted down by the appellant or someone else on his behalf. Mustafa Zaidi explained that such identity cards, gate‑passes are used by the casual visitors to the factory. However, this gate‑pass f was not believed by the learned Labour Court and there was no substantial evidence that the appellant was an employee of the respondent.

7. An observation is made by the Labour Court that the appellant was a fortune‑sake not interested in job but was interested in the back benefits. This observation was made due to the fact that the respondents offered him to join the duties which he did not. The appellant .was reluctant to accept the offer when so directed in the open Court.

8. I have read the impugned order of the Labour Court and I feel that the appellant was not able to prove that he was ever employed by the respondents and the gate‑pass is not sufficient evidence in view of the denial by the respondents. I agree with the learned Labour Court and maintain his impugned order. The appeal accordingly is hereby dismissed.

A.E. Appeal dismissed