2001 PLC 381 (PLP)

Hakim Ali Siddiqui for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th January, 2001. In this appeal appellant Shabbir Ahmed has called in question the order dated 11‑10‑1999 of Sindh Labour Court No.VI Hyderabad whereby his grievance application was dismissed. The appellant's case is that he was employed as Weaver in the Respondents' Factory in year 1989 and became President of the Workers Union of the said factory. Annoyed by the appellant's formation of the Trade Union and his refusal to resign from the Union, the Respondent Manager terminated his services without written order and in violation of Mandatory provision of Standing Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 which was applicable because as many as 26 Workmen were employed in the Respondents' Factory. He served a grievance notice upon the Respondents' Factory but with no result. He thereafter filed grievance petition which was dismissed as stated above.

2. In the Reply Statement the Respondents' Establishment have denied the relationship of employer and employee between the parties and as such the appellant had no locus standi to file the grievance petition with further averment that neither the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 nor Factories Act, 1934 nor the I.R.O. 1969 were applicable to Respondents' Establishment and therefore no cause of action, whatsoever, accrued to the appellant for filing grievance petition nor the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain such petition. The Respondents' Establishment pleads ignorance about the formation of any trade union in its Establishment. If at all any such Union was formed it was illegal and in violation of law.

3. The appellant filed his Affidavit‑in‑Evidence and similarly the Respondents' Establishment also filed affidavit‑in‑evidence of Haji Muhammad Ramzan, the Proprietor of the Establishment. I have perused the said affidavit and have also heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties.

4. The important point to be determined in this case is of the parties's relationship of employer and employee. On one hand the appellant's version of the case is that he was inducted in the Respondents' Establishment as Weaver and on the other hand the Respondents' Establishment have vehemently denied any such relationship with the appellant. In this situation the burden was heavily cast on the appellant to prove such relationship. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to certain documents in his attempt to show that they prove the necessary relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the Respondents' Establishment. The first document referred to by him was trade union Certificate issued on 26‑4‑1994 which no doubt indicates the registration of the said Union in the Respondents' Establishment. The other document is a list of office‑bearers of the Union furnished by Assistant Director Labour (Trade Union) to the General Secretary Labour Union Tando Adam. It is dated 17‑10‑1994. The appellant Shabbir Ahmed is shown in the list as President of the Union. It was not denied in course of arguments that even outsider not employed in the factory or Establishment can become member and even office‑bearer of the Trade Union. Therefore, above documents are of no avail to the appellant in order to prove his relationship of being employee of the Respondents' Establishment. It is an admitted position that the appellant was not issued his Appointment Order which in fact is the basic' document to prove his employment in the Respondents' Establishment. It is also an admitted position that even Termination Order was not issued in writing. In absence of both these important documents the appellant's liability to prove his contention of being employee of the Respondent's Establishment becomes greater: From the record of the case there is no evidence worth the name which proves the relationship of the parties as; employer and employee.

5. Apart from above the learned Labour Court has rightly pointed out that the documents available on record particularly those which are produced by the appellant do not establish that Respondents' Establishment was a factory. He is right in holding that the list of workers on which appellant's case was based also did not help him for the reason that number of workers shown in the list were only

17. He has also failed to prove that he was inducted in the factory as Weaver. His word unsupported by any convincing evidence could not be held as proof of his employment. The learned Labour Court has rightly pointed out that though according to appellant's version there were as many as 27 workers employed in the Respondents' Establishment, yet none of them has been produced in evidence to prove the appellant's case. For above reasons I see no justification to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. Accordingly while upholding the decision of the Labour Court the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./35/K(L. trib) Appeal dismissed.