1987 PLP 121 (PLC)

Akhtar Ahmad Bhutto for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th August, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 26‑5‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that according to the appellant he was appointed as Jobber in the respondent Mills, on 4‑4‑1983 and that his service, he was not allowed any overtime or leave salary etc. and he was finally terminated, on 20‑11‑1983 without assigning any reason and without giving anything in writing. He, thereafter, sent his grievance notice, on 26‑1‑1984 and then submitted his grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. The case of the respondent was that the appellant was appointed on 4‑4‑1983 but, on 21‑4‑1983, he himself resigned from service and that he was paid off and was never re‑employed thereafter. That the grievance petition of the appellant was not maintainable on the ground of its being barred by limitation and rest of the contentions of the appellant were also denied.

4. Both parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and were duly cross‑examined. Consequently the learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Akhtar Ahmad Bhutto on behalf of the respondent Mills and have perused the record and proceedings of the case.

6. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was employed as Double Sider, on 4‑4‑1983 and that he had himself voluntarily resigned, on 21‑4‑1983 and was paid for the said period. But, it was contended by Mr. Ali Ahmad for the appellant that the appellant was re‑called by the respondent; Mills, on 25‑4‑1983 and was re‑employed and that suddenly, on 30‑11‑1983, his services were terminated because the appellant was taking part in union activities. Thus, this contention was refuted by the respondent Mills, yet, this is the only point which is to be determined in the present appeal. In this behalf, Mr. Ali Ahmad has relied upon three documents, Exhs. A‑3, A‑4 and A‑5 to prove the re‑employment of the appellant, on 25‑4‑1983. These documents were merely photostat copies and the appellant could not produce before the learned Labour Court the original copies of the same, particularly in view of the fact that these documents were challenged by the respondent Mills as they being forged and fabricated documents. I have myself carefully examined these documents and I find that Exhs. A‑3 and A‑4 did not support the claim of the appellant that he was re‑employed by the respondent Mills or that after 21‑4‑1983 till 30‑11‑1983, the appellant was working in the respondent Mills. About Exh. A‑5, there is a specific admission by the appellant himself that it A did not pertain to him. Moreover, neither in the grievance notice nor in the grievance petition, the appellant had disclosed that these documents were in his possession in support of his pleadings. But, after filing of the reply statement before the learned Labour Court by the respondent Mills, the appellant, as a surprise, had disclosed these documents, which is not permissible in Law. The evidence of the witness of the appellant also did not appear to be confidence inspiring. Furthermore, as the appellant could not establish that he was re‑employed by the respondent Mills with effect from 25‑4‑1983 to 30‑11‑1983, therefore, on this ground also, the grievance petition of the appellant' was barred by limitation, hence, not maintainable. I, therefore, hold that the appellant has no case.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I maintain the impugned order and would dismiss this appeal. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.