2000 PLP 228 (PLC)

Sher Afgan: Amicus curiae, These are four appeals filed under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which will be disposed of by this Judgment as they involve common questions of facts and law.

2. Respondents and their counsel are called absent. Since the respondents and their counsel were not present, I requested Mr. Sher Afgan to assist this Court as amicus curie.

3. He has taken me through the judgment and submitted that it is the cardinal principle which has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the onus of proof lies upon the applicant to show that he is a workman and the Labour Court has got jurisdiction to entertain application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, On independent assessment of the judgment he is of the opinion that the appellants have failed to show that they have been in the employment of the respondents and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was applicable to them so as to establish that the appellants have a vested right as secured by the law to file a grievance application challenging the breach of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. As such, according to him, the learned Labour Court has come to a right conclusion while dismissing the applications of the appellants.

4. Mr. Mushtaq Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were working with the respondents as weavers and the name of all the four appellants appear on the sheets Annexure 'B' attached with the affidavit‑in‑evidence, which shows period from 1‑1‑1997 to 15‑.1‑1997 and 16‑1‑1997 to 31‑1‑1997 which appears to bear seal of Messrs, Mehtab Fabrics (Pvt) Limited, Karachi but on a simple piece of paper. The two sheets do not appear to have been exhibited. On querry by me the learned counsel admitted that he did not mention the name of the person who seems to have initialed. These sheets do not appear to have been proved. On my enquiry the learned counsel admitted that the person who initialled was neither named nor produced by the appellants.

5. He further submitted that the person who has signed the written statement, on behalf of the Company, did not appear as witness. The two other persons Naveed Hussain and Mazher Hussain filed their affidavit‑in- evidence and appeared as witnesses. He is not able to substantiate his submission by producing any authority to show that in the case of Limited Company the Officer of the company who signed the written statement must necessarily appear as a witness. The learned counsel was confronted with Exh. R.W. 1, annexed with the written statement containing 9 persons as employees of the respondent. He, however, invited my attention to the Salary Register produced by the respondents for the period of one year i.e. from May, 1996 to May, 1997, Learned counsel submitted that this Register is bogus and appears to have been prepared in one stroke.

6. After perusal of the evidence that has come on record the contention of the appellant seems to be that there were about 27 workers in the factory and running the factory on Plot Nos. A, B, C and D, which according to the counsel, are working jointly. On the other hand, the evidence led by the respondents is that this respondent runs his factory having only ten looms on Plot No.B. The entire plot has been subdivided into four parts marked as A, B, C and D by the Central Board of Revenue, running separately, maintaining account separately and submitting account regularly to the Social Security Institution showing as number of employees nine or ten. The respondent, herein, do not seem to have employed twenty workmen to attract the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondents have produced letter from the C.B.R., Approved Plan and also the Rent Agreement, which proved that they are running the factory on subdivided Plot No. B. The list submitted by the appellants, which goes un-exhibited and was unproved has not been believed by the learned Court. The learned Labour Court has. believed the version of the respondents that they were running small ten looms factory under the shed B, and nine or ten workmen were working with the respondents.

7. Mr. Mushtaq lastly submitted that, in fact, the whole concern is carried on by one Khalid Amin but they are maintaining four separate Khattas to defeat the implementation of the Labour Laws.

8. Be that as it may, the material on record does not establish the assertion of the appellant. The assertion that the appellants have been piece rated workers and used to earn wages on the basis of quantum of production, but they were issued neither any appointment letter nor any identity card nor he has produced any documentary proof to show the relationship of the appellants with the respondents as workmen, I, therefore, find myself in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Labour Court. The appeals have no force and are dismissed. H. B.T./271/K(Lab trib) Appeal dismissed.