1999 PLP 463 (PLC)

This appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 arises out of the decision, dated 4th July, 1998 (wrongly stated in the memo of appeal as 22‑4‑1998, passed by the Third Sindh Labour Court wherein it was, inter alia, stated that the appellant has been a permanent worker in the respondent establishment as a Helper since last one year. The respondent terminated the appellant's service on 18‑2‑1997 without issuing any letter of termination. Grievance notice was, thus, sent on 7‑3‑1997 by registered post which was refused by the respondent. It was, therefore, prayed in the grievance petition that the appellant may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. On the other hand, the respondent, in its reply statement, pleaded that the appellant was employed as temporary worker on daily‑paid basis (with gaps) till 9‑6‑1996 and that the appellant's daily‑wage employment came to an end on 9‑6‑1996. It was further alleged in the reply statement that the grievance notice was belated and time‑barred and as such the grievance petition, filed by the appellant, is not maintainable.

2. The appellant examined himself as his own witness. Although' he also filed affidavits‑in‑evidence of Ghulam Hussain and Abdul Qayum Ali as witnesses, who, however, declined to appear for cross‑examination. The learned Presiding Officer, in fact, recorded such statement on 14‑3‑1998 declining to give evidence and withdrawing the affidavits, filed in the Court, on behalf of the, appellant.

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‑wage employment dated 9‑6‑1996 which, among others, is duly signed by the appellant in token of receipt of Rs.50 as his daily wages for 9‑6‑1996 on revenue stamp, such wage sheet was duly initialed by the respondent company.

4. I have heard Mr. Shamsher Khan Representative for 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 of 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 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 employee and employer does not exist, as contemplated by law.

5. 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 9‑6‑1996. 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 the I.R.O., 1969, consequently, the very application under section 25-A of the I-R.O. 1969 was not maintainable

6. 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.

7. To conclude the appellant has failed, the onus of proof of the le 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.

8. 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./265/K./Lab. (Trib.) ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.