1978 PLP 271 (PLC)

Syed Zamirul Hasan for Appellant. Raja Shams‑uz‑Zaman for Respondent Date of hearing: 17th August 1977. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re‑instatement of the respondents on an application made under Section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. The respondents claimed themselves to be in the permanent employment of the appellant. On 2nd November, 19766 they formed a Trade Union and on 6th November 1976 they made an application to the Registrar for registration. They sent an intimation to the Management on 8th November, 1976 by registered post with the A/D, but the letter was returned undelivered. It's alleged that on 15th November 1976 they were stopped at the gate and, therefore, it was presumed that their services had been terminated. They made representation to the appellant without success. So they approached the Labour Court for the redress of their grievance.

3. The application was opposed on various grounds. It was pleaded that some of the respondents were not in the employment, some were on probation and some were temporary while, a few were permanent. It was also pleaded that there were less than 20 workers in the factory and, therefore, the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable. It was denied that they were stopped at the gate, but some of the workers had remained absent and they were charge‑sheeted. They did not care to face the inquiry which was ordered. The termination of the service of the probationers and temporary workers was not open to any exception.

4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties by filing their affidavits. They were cross‑examined. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court rejected the pleas taken on behalf of the appellant and ordered re instatement of the workers except Ghulam Rasool and Mohammad Arshad for whom it was held that they were not in the employment of the appellant. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed by the Management.

5. The very first question to be considered in this case is whether there were 20 or more workmen in the employment of the appellant in order to attract the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance and justifying the interference by the Labour Court. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to support the finding of the Labour Court that 20 or more persons were in the employment of the appellant. It is noteworthy that the respondents did not produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that there were 20 or more persons working in the employment. Not only this. but although, a definite plea was raised in the written‑statement disputing the application of the Standing Orders Ordinance and non‑employment of 20 or more workers; but none of the workers in their affidavits which had been fled in evidence after the reply‑statement controverted this plea. Not a word was stated that the plea raised by the Management was not true and there were 20 or more persons in the employment of the appellant. It was only in the cross‑examination of a few workers who proceeded to say that the number of workers was in excess of 2). Even on this point, they were not sure and gave different figures. Moreover, it was found by the learned Presiding, Officer himself that two respondents, Ghulam Rasool and Mohammad Arshad were not in the employment at of the appellant and, therefore it was established that a false claim was made by the respondents and they gave false evidence. Thus it cannot be said with certainty that some more false names had not been shown in the list of the workers being in the employment of the appellant. On the other hand the appellant produced Wage Registers showing that the maximum workers employed in the factory did not exceed

16. These Registers were rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the clerk who had made the entries was not examined. I am unable to endorse the view taken by him It is immaterial whether the person who made the entries was examined o some other person was examined to produce the registers. The Wages Registers boar the signatures of the workmen when they received their wages. So it cannot be said that the registers were fabricated and false documents were prepared. Consequently, the learned Presiding Office clearly erred on not attaching any value to the registers. The burden the there were 20 or more workers in the employment of the appellant was on the respondents and they miserably failed to discharge it,

6. In the result I hold that the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable and the application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O. was not maintainable. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The application made under Section 25‑A, I. R. O. stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.