ZENITH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal against the order allowing the reinstatement of the petitioner has arisen in brief are as follows:

The petitioner was working as a Cutting Master with the respondent since 1‑7‑1985. It is alleged that when on 4‑3‑1991 he had reported for duty, he was informed that his services were required no more. He had thereupon sent a grievance notice n the 12th of March which was not replied to, and the petition was filed on the 3rd of April, 1991.

2. In the Written Reply it was alleged that the petitioner had been absent from duty from a date which has been left blank and had later on informed the respondent that because of personal involvement he was not in a position to carry on working with the respondent any more. Again this date, when he had allegedly turned up, had been left blank.

3. The petitioner was his own witness and Nasir Khan and Haji Munawar Khan, the Personnel Manager of the respondent appeared on behalf of the respondent. It might also be mentioned that an affidavit of one Anis Umar Nagda who was the Production Manager of the respondent had been filed but he did not turn up for cross‑examination and so it had to be excluded from consideration.

4. The Labour Court found that the removal of the petitioner was unlawful and allowed the petition. The back benefits were allowed with the deduction of 2 months' salary in view of the evidence of Nasir Khan who had testified that the petitioner had worked with M/s. Grace Apparel (Pvt.) Limited from 12‑10‑1991 to 21‑12‑1991.

5. The petitioner in his affidavit‑in‑evidence had recounted the circumstances in which he had been removed from service and. nothing worthwhile could be elicited from him in cross‑examination. The stand of the appellant all along was it was the respondent who had deserted them and they were even now willing to rejoin him. Haji Munawar Khan also carried on Labour Court. Anyway during cross‑examination he had produced the attendance card of the respondent and on his own showing the entry on the 4th of March is to the effect that the attendance of the respondent had been stopped on the orders of Wasim Ahmed, a Director of the company. This lends full support to the case of the respondent that it was the appellant who had verbally terminated his services on the 4th of March.

6. As the matter stands, the appeal is devoid of all merit. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.

7. As the appellant had repeated the offer to take the respondent back on duty during the earlier rehearing, and the respondent is working with them even uptodate, so the respondent will be entitled to full back benefits from the: 4th of March, 1991 up to the 9th of December, 1992 only and the deduction of the payment of two months as ordered earlier by the Labour Court.

Orders accordingly.

H.B.T./2171/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Orders accordingly.