MURTAZA BAIG Versus MANAGER, PREMIER GLASS INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD

ORDER

1. The applicant was said to have been employed in the respondent hment in the year 1977. He was lastly working as Muthewala rate of Rs.84 per day. On 1‑11‑1986 he was removed without assigning any reason in writing. Accordingly, he sent a grievance dated 15‑12‑1986 which was replied by the respondent on 7. It has also been pleaded that no service documents were .sued or maintained by the respondent though the provisions Ordinance are applicable to it. He accordingly filed this for his re‑instatement with consequential benefits.

2. In its reply statement, the respondent questioned the very jurisdiction of this Court and the maintainability of this petition on and that since it has never employed more than 24/25 workers, the S.O. Ordinance is not applicable. It has also been pleaded that applicant was in fact appointed on 22‑7‑1978 and had worked 1‑10‑1986 at the rate of Rs.40 per day. He himself left the job ‑10‑1.986 but did not submit any resignation though demanded. He was also offered his wages but he avoided to receive it, and so application is not maintainable.

3. The applicant alone appeared as his witness in support of his case whereas one Mr. Obedur Rehman, Manager and Muhammad Sharif, contractor, were tendered in evidence on behalf of the respondent. After evidence I have heard Mr. Wahid Bux Shaikh, Representative for the applicant, and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, counsel for the Respondent. I have also examined the material on record.

4. The first point which poses for consideration is whether the present petition is maintainable. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that undisputedly the strength of the workers in the respondent establishment was not more than 25 at a time and so the provisions of S.O. Ordinance are not wholly applicable. Accordingly, no right is guaranteed to the applicant to file the present petition. Attentin of this Court has been invited to the evidence on record and according to which it has been pleaded that the strength of workers never exceeded 25. Mr. Wahid Bux, however, submitted that the record as produced by the respondent is not all and is also not genuine. According to him, there were 54 workers as per A‑5.

5. The respondent has produced its Attendance Register in original and its genuineness has not been assailed in any manner. According to it the strength of workers never exceeded to 17 persons. The applicant was also paid through this very register and he has admitted his signatures at all places. The applicant however, placed reliance on the documents A‑4 and A‑5. A‑4 is only a Photostat copy and even if it is accepted as true, it itself shows the strength of the workers as only 30. A‑5 is only a typed list and has not been accepted as correct by the respondent. The applicant led no evidence to prove the correctness of this A‑5 or to show that the respondent ever employed more than 50 persons in its factory to attract the entire provisions of S.Os.12 and 15. Since applicant has failed to establish that entire S.Os.12 or 15 are applicable, even if the applicant was orally removed, he had no secured right for re‑instatement and so cannot maintain the present petition. Even if the termination was oral in violation of 5.0.12, the respondent can only be prosecuted by the Inspector of Factories but this petition cannot be brought by the worker as he has no guaranteed right for his re‑instatement.

6. On merits as well the applicant has no case. In his grievance notice the applicant had demanded his wages and in the alternative his re‑instatement. Admittedly the respondent called upon the applicant to collect his dues but he never went for this purpose. In this view of the matter, he cannot now claim only re‑instatement as this prayer in this petition would be contrary to the grievance shown in his B grievance notice. Moreover, in the cross‑examination the applicant himself pleaded that he was only suspended and was never removed. If it is so, he cannot have any grievance in regard to the alleged removal.

7. In view of the above, this petition is not maintainable and so is dismissed. The respondent however, should remit his dues.

8. A.E. /1047/Lb.S

9. Petition dismissed.