1987 PLP 50 (PLC)

Nemo for Appellant. A. Samad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th August, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant, against the impugned order, dated 17‑5‑1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, l under section 25‑A, I . R. 0. , 1969.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed with the respondent Establishment since 31‑8‑1982. That on 7‑2‑1983, he was called in the office of ‑the Manager of the respondent factory through Mr. Suhail, the Supervisor and was pressurized to tender resignation by signing on a blank paper. That on his refusal to do so, he was verbally dismissed from service and when, on 8‑2‑1983, he reported for duty, he was gate‑stopped. That this oral termination was in violation of Standing Order 12(3), thus, he submitted a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I . R.O. , 1969.

3. The case of the respondent Establishment was that the appellant was not a permanent worker as he was appointed purely on temporary basis for a specific period of six months, vide Exh. A/2 of the record 0 of the Labour Court, and that he could be terminated within that period without notice. That he was not pressurized to tender resignation and that the fact was that there was no need of a helper in the Yigment Section so, his services were terminated through a written order, which was received by him before the witnesses but he refused to put his signature on its copy as a token of its receipt.

4. Before the learned Labour Court, the appellant had examined himself only. He did not produce any other evidence or witness in support of his allegations. The respondent Establishment produced three witnesses, who were duly cross‑examined by the appellant. Considering the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.

5. Today, neither the appellant nor his learned representative Mr. Salim Raza were present. They were called but absent. I have beard Mr. A. Samad, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Factory and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that the appellant was employed in the respondent Establishment purely on temporary basis for a period of six months as a helper in the Yigment Section and that he was issued a written termination order and further that he was not pressurized to tender his resignation by signing on a blank paper. It is crystal clear that the appellant had told a lie because if he had signed on a blank paper, then, it could have been used as his resignation and no termination letter could have been issued by the respondent Factory. The corroborative testimony of three witnesses of the respondent Establishment could not be shaken in cross‑examination by the appellant. Except the sole words of the appellant, there was no other supporting evidence or witness before the learned Labour Court. From the record, it is revealed that the appellant has taken different pleas on different occasions, which are self‑contradictory. This type of pleadings clearly proved the appellant as a liar and not entitled to maintain his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, which was rightly dismissed.

6. For the reasons, stated by me above, i see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. I, therefore, maintain it. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. S. Q.??? Appeal dismissed.