SAREEN JAN Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal from the order of the Labour Court dismissing the grievance application filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the IRO arises in the following circumstances:--

The case of the appellant as presented before the Labour Court was that he had been working with the respondent for a number of years and in the month of May, 1989 there was some dispute between them about the annual increment. To silence him, his services came to be terminated verbally.

2. All this came to be denied in the Written Reply. Shorn of unnecessary legal and factual contentions raised, suffice it to say that their case was that the petitioner was working as a jobber with them and because services of all the jobbers were to be terminated, the petitioner had tendered his resignation and applied afresh for appointment as an operator. The request was acceded to. However, after working for a few months he lost interest in the job and resigned. The resignation was accepted and all the payments due to him were paid out. The question of any removal under the circumstances was wide of the mark.

3. The appellant was his own witness, and Iqbal Dinar Factory Manager of the respondent appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The appellant does not deny his signatures which are in English, or the thumb-impressions oil the documents which have been brought on the record from R-4 to R-11. These are his applications for appointment, acceptance of the payments made to him at the time he left the job as a jobber and inter on as an operator.

5. All that has been said by the appellant was that his signatures and thumb-impressions had been obtained by the respondent during the course of his employment which have been utilized subsequently for his ouster.

There is no support forthcoming for the version of the appellant from any quarters whatsoever. It is to be seen that he admits that he had been working as jobber and all the jobbers had been removed from employment earlier. He admits also, that at the relevant time he was working as an operator.

7. The version conceded by the appellant approximates with the version as put' forward by the respondent that he was working as jobber before he came to be re-employed as an operator. There are receipts of payments on both the occasions. The burden lay on the appellant to put some construction on his allegations. That has not been even attempted. On the other hand the respondents have a certain reputation to save. To accept that they stooped to, such a scandalously fraudulent behavior would not pass muster unless properly established which is not the case here.

8. I will therefore uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2108/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.