2013 PLC 315 (PLP)

ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).

This revision application has been preferred under section 48(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (repealed) whereby impugning the order dated 20-3-2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court # III at Karachi, which was challenged before the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, through L.R.A. # 12 of 2006 and after coming into existence of this Tribunal, the said L.R.A. has been received from High Court of Sindh , Karachi. Mr. Bacha Fazal Mannan learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob learned counsel for the respondent management have advanced their written synopsis/arguments. After going through the record and proceedings of the case and synopsis, I have come to the following:

This matter pertains to the year 1998 and since then matter is pending before various forums i.e. the Authority under Payment of Wages Act as well as before learned Sindh Labour Court and since 2006 the matter was pending before High Court of Sindh and after establishment of this Tribunal, this revision application has been received on transfer. There is a very short point involved whether the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are applicable for the purpose of determination of entitlement of applicant for the payment of gratuity. Record reveals that the learned Authority had allowed the claim of the applicant regarding the gratuity two times and the learned Labour Court had remanded the matter one time and on the second time rejected the claim of the applicant on perusal of the evidence recorded by the learned ' Authority. The decision of the learned Authority is based on the evidence of one of the witnesses of the `applicant who has given the number of workers in his evidence and the very important point in the evidence is to be reproduced hereunder:

"The time when the said witness was working in the establishment, as he left the employment in September, 1983 so his evidence is to be considered." Following the same statement. "At the time when I was working Two Iron Cutters, One Re-Rolling Machine, One Lathe Machine and One Furnace were settled at the respondent company. Again says that there were .4 Two Furnaces for the other purposes... I left the company in September, 1983. I do not know the affairs of the company after September, 1983." Keeping in view of the above statement, if I go through the relevant provision of law i.e. Standing Order 1 (4)(c) and proviso to the said clause which reproduced hereunder:

"Provided further that the provisions of Standing Order 10-B and 11, clauses (6) and (8) of Standing Order 12 and Standing Orders 15 shall not apply in the first instance, to any industrial establishment wherein not more than forty-nine persons were employed on any day during the preceding twelve months but Government may by notification in the official Gazette, extend all or any of the said provisions to any such industrial establishment or any class of such establishments." In view of the above relevant provision the evidence of the witness having no value, as because the same pertained to the past period and. not to the relevant preceding twelve months, hence the applicant has failed to produce evidence to this effect. Whereas, I had also perused the evidence of the respondent which clearly established that at the relevant time i.e. for the years 1997 and 1998 less than 49 persons were employed, hence the applicant is not entitled for the gratuity according to law. I find no merits in the revision application, which is accordingly dismissed. HBT/2/SLT Revision application dismissed.