ABRAR AHMED KHAN Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, FIFTH SINDH LABOUR COURT KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal from the order of the Labour Court No. V at Karachi dismissing the petition of the appellant under section 25‑A of I.R.O., arises in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner alleged that's he was working with the respondent company as a `Driver' since 1983. However, he was not issued any appointment letter or identity card and was also kept deprived of other benefits given to the other employees. When he had remonstrated about these short measures being given to him, he was removed from service verbally. He had sent a grievance notice which was replied to. As he was not taken back, he sought his remedy from the Labour Court.

3. The respondents in their "Written Reply" asserted that the petitioner was in the personal employment of Mr. Chughtai, an Assistant Manager of the respondents‑Company. The rest of the allegations came to be denied.

4. The petitioner was his own witness and nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents at all.

5. The appellant alongwith the petition had himself filed a receipt which clearly shows that he was a Driver working for Mr. Jehangir Chughtai in the latter's personal capacity and was getting pay from him. Though he states to have been denied all the benefits which emanate from the company in favour of the workers, on his own showing he had not complained for the same to the Labour Department or any body else for full seven years. He had no appointment letter or any other document to prove that had anything to do with the respondent‑Company. He has only produced a "Sincere Services Certificate" but that is not on behalf of the company.

6. It was for the appellant to prove that he was in the employment of the company and that he has failed to do. Mr. Rehan Aqeel referred to some citations, but that is hardly necessary to make a mention about.

7. Mr. Gohar Iqbal, however, contended that the case of the appellant had gone totally unchallenged. I am afraid it does not depict the whole truth. The respondent had filed a "Written Reply" in which all the allegations put forward in the case had been denied. The appellant was also tested in cross- examination. The facts that the respondent did not put some body into the witness‑box was for them to decide. Mr. Rehan Aqeel in that context has referred to a judgment of the Sindh High Court namely Yasmeen Kausar v. M/s. Midway House 1985 PLC 785 and that is on all fours with his contention.

8. The case of the appellant stands disproved by the very receipt placed on the record alongwith the petition.

9. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

A.A./2098/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.