1982 PLP 608 (PLC(CS))

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant, Date of hearing: 12th January 1982. The appellant submitted a grievance petition on 27th October, 1980, before the learned IVth Labour Court, Karachi, against the two res pondents alleging that he had been employed since 16th April, 1978 in the establishment of the first respondent through contractor Suleman, the second respondent, that he continued to perform his duty in the Weaving Department of the first respondent till 28th August, 1980 but on 29th August; 1980 he was gate stopped and was asked to settle his accounts with the mills, that he refused to settle his accounts and accordingly he was told that his services had been terminated. It was further alleged by the appellant in his grievance petition that his services had been illegally terminated on account of his interest and participation in the union activities. Both the respondents denied that the appellant was ever employed by them. The second respondent further took the stand that he was an employee of the first respondent, being Section Incharge, and does not work as contractor either on behalf of the fist respondent or any one else. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that he has failed to establish that he was ever the employee of the first or the second respondents and accor dingly the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellant. His contention was that the appellant was employed by the first respondent through the second respondent, contractor Suleman, and that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 29th September, 1980 without any order in writing or any valid reason for termination of service.

3. Since both the respondents had strongly disputed the claim of the appellant that he was employed by either of them, the burden of proof lay on the appellant to establish the relationship of employer and work man between him and either of the respondents. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim admitted that there was no documentary evidence to establish such relationship. Neither any letter of appointment or letter of termination of services of the appellant or any other record or document evidenc ing payment of wages, bonus or other benefits to the appellant by either of the respondents, has been produced by the appellant in support of his contention. He has even failed to lead any evidence to show cause that he ever took treatment from the social security hospital or that his name was registered by either of the respondents with the social security institution. The only evidence that the appellant has been able to lead in support of his contention, besides his bare word, is an attendance card said to be of Suleman, Weaving Contractor. Although the appellant has denied that the first respondent issued letter of appointment and orders of termination of services to their employees he was shown the service certificate bearing his own thumb‑impression and photograph which shows that he was previously employed by the first respondent with effect from 25th July, 1975 but he resigned on 9th April, 1978. It is pertinent to note that the date of resignation of the appellant from the employment of the first respondent is very near the date of 16th April, 1978 from which date he claims that he was employed by the first respondent through the second respondent. There was no necessity of the appellant resigning his employment with the first respondent if after a few days he was anxi ous to seek re‑employment with it through the second respondent. As regards the attendance card bearing the name of Suleman Contractor, it has not been established that it was issued by Suleman, the Incharge of the Weaving Department in the respondent mill. The said Suleman was examined by this Tribunal and strongly denied that he had issued the said card or it bears his signature. An application has been submitted today by Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for sending the said card to the hand writing expert for giving an opinion whether the signature thereon is of witness Suleman but I consider it unnecessary to refer the said card to the expert as apart from the fact That the application by Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim has been made very late, the opinion of the hand writing expert would not materially affect the result of the case as it is the case of the appellant himself that he is not employee of Suleman but of the first respondent.

4. This Tribunal had also examined the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, as it was the case of Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim that an admission had been made before him by the respondent that the appellant was their employee. The Assistant Director, Mr. Mohib K. Habib, however, denied that any such admission had been made by either of the respondents. He stated that a complaint had been made. to him regarding the unauthorised termination of services of about 58 persons working in the respondent mills whereupon he had visited the mills and on his sugges tion the contractors of the mills, who were the employers of the said 58 persons, had taken back the said persons in their employment. The evidence of the Assistant Director thus in no way lends support to the case of the appellant and at best only shows that some work in the mills of the first respondent is done through contractors.

5. From the evidence given before this Tribunal by the Assistant Director Labour Welfare, Mr. Mohib K. Habib it appears that Suleman was, in fact, a contractor in the mills of the first respondent but the said Suleman denied this fact before this Tribunal. Let notice be issued to Suleman why he should not be prosecuted for giving false evidence before this Tribunal.

6. As the appellant has failed to establish that he was employed by either of the respondents, I would concur in the finding of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal in limine.