1999 PLP 447 (PLC)

2. By this single judgment it is intended to decide these appeals as they involve similarity of facts and law.

3. I have heard Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Representative of all the appellants and Mr. Gohar lqbal learned counsel for the respondent.

4. All the appellants have claimed to be permanent workers of the respondent as weavers for considerable time (no date, month or year of the alleged employment has been stated either in the grievance application or the affidavit‑in‑evidence). It was alleged that on 23‑7‑1996 when the appellants requested for allowances, the respondent having become annoyed terminated their employment verbally without assigning any reason for the same. The appellants then sent grievance notices to the respondent by post all bearing date as 19‑3‑1996. Having received no reply they filed grievance applications, for reinstatement with full back benefits, on 20‑5‑1996.

5. On the other hand the respondent who filed their Reply Statement took the plea that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties, no grievance notice was served upon the respondent and that there was no cause of action against the respondent i.e. the management in the name of Sub‑Cos.‑II against which the appellants filed the cases. It was specifically denied that the appellants were ever employed by the respondent in any capacity. There is no such management as Sub‑Cos.‑11 or Sub‑cos.‑II (Private) Limited. It has been only Sub‑Cos (Private) Limited established on Plot No.A‑12 S.I.T.E., Karachi. The learned Labour Court after framing issues recorded the evidence led by the parties and in result dismissed all the applications holding, inter alia, that there was no relationship c4 employer and employee between the parties.

6. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui submitted before me that there is Sub‑Cos.‑I (Private) Limited on Plot No.A/12. S.I.T.E. Karachi whereas Sub‑Cos.‑II (Private) Limited is situated on Plot No.A/16 S.I.T.E., Karachi. They have, however, failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that they had ever any connection whatsoever with Sub‑Cos‑I

1. They also failed to produce any witness to support their allegations.

7. I took pains to go through the cross‑examination of Sher Bahadur (only) in Appeal No.209 of 1998 (Grievance Application No.51 of 1997) as it was a micro photo-stat copy placed on the file which was very dim, wherein he admitted that "I have not given any written application to the respondent Abdul Qayyum Yayha, Ahmadani, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Junaid and Agha for issue of appointment letter and other documents‑‑‑that is the job of the union. It is correct that I have no document to show that I worked either on Plot No.A/16 or A/12. Voluntarily says that despite of our demands the respondent had not issued the same‑‑‑. It is correct that on Plot A/12 there exists and working Sub‑Cos. (Private) Limited. It is incorrect that on Plot No.A/16 M/s. Zeenat Bond situated and working. It may be that M/s. Zeenat Bond and Zeenat Shirt Clothing Factory may be one and the same on Plot No.A/16 but not the Zeenat Shirt Factory. It is correct that I have not sent any grievance notice on Plot No.A/12. Voluntarily says that I sent the same on Plot No.1/16". At the end of his cross‑examination he stated that "I have not made any complaint in writing either to Labour Department or to any other Department regarding non‑issue of appointment letter and other documents. It is incorrect that I have not made such complaint because I have never worked with the respondent. It is correct that all the applicants before this Court know each other. He, however, denied that they have filed the present case against the respondent to put pressure and to get money from them. It is incorrect that I have filed false case against the respondent". It is an admitted position that neither any witness was produced nor a single document of any nature whatsoever was produced before the Court. At least the appellants could produce the work/job Card which they have also failed.

9. On the other hand, the respondent in support of its submission that Sub‑Cos.‑II, is non‑existent contended that there is only one concern in the name of Sub‑Cos. (Private) Limited. In the affidavit‑in‑evidence filed on behalf of the respondent company one Agha Muhammad Shafqat, the Manager of Sub‑Cos. (Private) Limited stated on oath that "there is no Sub- Cos.‑II at Plot No.A/16, S.I.T.E. Karachi". In the Reply Statement it was asserted that applicants/appellants never worked for the respondent at all, hence the question of demand for the benefit or the alleged termination did not arise. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed a number of documents R/1 to R/6 viz. Karachi Electric Supply Bill, dated 13‑1‑1998, letter from Sindh Industrial Trading Estate, dated 19‑11‑1995 R/2, letter of Government of Sindh Office of the Electric Inspector, Karachi Region, dated 24‑9‑1994 R.3. Sui Southern Gas Bill for December, 1997 R.4 and a letter from Government of Sindh Office of the Electric Inspector, Karachi R.5. all in the name of Sub‑Cos. (Private) Limited A/12 S.I.T.E., Karachi. Respondents have also produced letter from Government of Sindh regarding installation, dated 18‑9‑1993 in the name of M/s. Zeenat Shirt and Clothing Factory A/46. S.I.T.E., Karachi. These documents and the affidavit‑in -evidence filed by the respondent Manager clearly show that there is no establishment in the name of Sub‑Cos.‑II or Sub‑Cos.‑III (Private) Limited but; as the witness for respondent failed to appear for cross‑examination, no reliance can be placed on his affidavit‑in‑evidence. Reference may be made to the statement of the counsel for the respondent in Court on 10‑3‑1998 that "he does not want to lead evidence on behalf of the respondent and shall rely on the written statement and evidence of the applicant on record".

10. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the following extract from the decision of the learned Labour Court that "the applicant has gang of notorious persons present in the locality and adopt foul means including filing of baseless cases before this Court to blackmail the employer and the same practice is adopted by the same group and its members".

11. At the last leg of his arguments Mr. Siddiqui referred to a number of documents filed in this Tribunal alongwith the appeal viz. photo-stat copies of three documents, namely, Certificate of Registration of their union in the name of ‑Sub‑Cos.‑II Workers Union, dated 25‑10‑1994 and a Certificate as the Collective Bargaining Agent, for Sub‑Cos-II, A/16, S.I.T.E., Karachi of January, 1995 (date not legible) and some order, dated 31st of January, 1996 purported to have been passed by the Authority Under Payment of Wages Act against M/s. Sub‑Cos.‑II which seemed to be an ex parte order. These documents appear t9 have been filed surreptitiously in this Tribunal alongwith memo. of appeal. They were not produced before the learned Labour Court nor any application for taking these documents on record in the appeal has been filed nor any case has been made out before this Tribunal as to why these documents (of whatever worth they may be) were not produced before the learned Labour Court nor any cause has been shown which prevented them to produce these documents in the Labour Court. I find that these three documents pertain to 1994, 1995 and 1996 much before the case was filed. It is pertinent to note that no mention of these documents was made in the affidavit‑in‑evidence of the appellants nor any reference was made before the learned' Labour Court during arguments. The photo-stat copies of these three documents, in the circumstances, cannot be looked into in this appeal.

12. According to an Islamic legal maxim which equally applies in Western concept of law " (Al-Beyenatu-al-lmudy)" the proof is on the plaintiff, the one who asserts a fact to be believed in his favour, it is incumbent on him to prove it. The burden of proof in the case lay on the appellants to prove the various assertions made in the application which they have failed to discharge. Merely the failure of the respondent to, adduce evidence, will not absolve the appellants/applicants from proving and establishing their case by leading evidence to the satisfaction of the Court, which they have miserably failed.

13. Before parting with this matter, it may be added that M/s. Sub‑Cos (Private) Limited put in their appearance in Court under protest.

14. For the aforesaid discussion, I find nothing wrong in the decision of the learned Labour Court and as such these appeals having no substance are dismissed accordingly. Judgment recorded and announced in open Court this 15th day of January, 1999. (H.B.T./284/K/Lab Trib.) Appeals dismissed.