1999P L C 416 (PLP)

3. The appellant produced no documentary evidence whatsoever whereas, the respondent, in support of the plea that the appellant was only daily wages worker, produced pay sheet of daily wages temporary workers of the last daily wages employment, dated 17‑10‑1995 which, among others, is duly signed by the appellant in token of receipt of Rs.50 as his daily wage for 17‑10‑1995 on revenue stamp. Such wage sheet was duly initialed by the respondent company.

4. I have heard Mr. Shamsher Khan, representative of the appellant and Syed Qamaruddin Hassan, Advocate for the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant, being a daily wage worker, was not entitled to any notice for termination of employment. He referred to sub‑clause (2) of Standing Order No. 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under:‑‑ 'No temporary workman, whether monthly‑rated, weekly‑rated, daily‑rated or piece‑rated and no probationer or badli, shall be entitled to any notice if his services are terminated by the employer, nor shall any such workman be required to give any notice or pay any wages in lieu thereof to the employer if he leaves employment of his own accord." In support of his submissions, reliance was placed by him on the case of Muhammad Yaqub v. Punjab Labour Court and 5 others (1990 SCMR 1539) wherein it was observed that a person who served as a work charge employee on daily wages and was not paid the wages for Fridays cannot claim to be a permanent workman even if he served for eight years.

5. In the instant case, the appellant was employed on daily wage basis with gaps of Saturdays and Sundays, cannot be, thus, taken to be a permanent worker and is not entitled to the protection under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The learned Labour Court has, therefore, rightly held that the appellant was a daily paid worker and that the relationship of employer and employee does not exist as contemplated by law.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the grievance notice was time‑barred. In the instant case daily wage employment of the appellant came to an end on 17‑10‑1995. The grievance notice should have been delivered to the respondent within three months whereas the same was sent on 7‑3‑1997. It, therefore, appears that the grievance notice was given by the appellant to the respondent much after the stipulated time of three months as provided in subsection (1) of section 25‑A, of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently the very application under section 25‑A, of the I.R.O. 1969, was not maintainable.

7. Incidentally, it may be pointed out, that the learned Presiding, Officer did not decide this point though, admittedly, it was taken, not only in the reply, statement to grievance petition, but also in the written arguments submitted by the respondent.

8. To conclude, the appellant has failed the onus of proof of the assertions, made by the appellant, was on him, which he failed to discharge. The learned Labour Court was, therefore, justified to dismiss his grievance application.

9. In result, the appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly. Announced in open Court, this the 16th day of April, 1999. H.B.T./304/K/Lab. (Trib.) Appeal dismissed.