1992 PLP 365 (PLC)

S.S. Jehangir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1991. This is an appeal against the order dated 21-2-1991 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. III at Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. 2. I have heard Mr. Ch. M. Maarif, learned Representative for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Jehangir for the respondent. 3. The appellant was admittedly workman employed by the respondent. It is alleged that he remained absent without leave from duty from 10-10-1989 for which he was directed to submit explanation but he failed to submit therefore his services were terminated on 12-11-1989. It is further contended by the respondent that the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to the establishment of the respondent as the number of workers employed by them was less than 10. The learned Labour Court has held that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance were not applicable to the establishment of the respondent. 4. Admittedly the appellant had been removed from service earlier also for which he filed the grievance petition No. 29 of 1988 which was allowed as the learned Labour Court held that the provisions of Standing Orders. Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the establishment of the respondent. It is observed in the instant case by the learned Labour Court, that this finding of the learned Labour Court would not necessarily show that even in 1989 the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the establishment of the respondent, in absence of proof by the appellant that the respondent establishment had employed 20 or more workmen on any day during the preceding 12 months. The impugned order of dismissal of appellant from service was passed on 11-12-1989 and therefore it has to be seen whether from 11-12-1988 on any day the respondent establishment had employed more than 20 workers. 5. The order of the learned Labour Court reinstating the appellant in service in the earlier grievance application had been produced as Annexure to the written statement. This order is dated 2-11-1988, which shows the services of the appellant were terminated on 12-12-1987. The order shows that the respondent in that case did not produce any evidence and in absence of any proof the learned Labour Court accepted the word of the appellant that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the establishment of the respondent. However, this would show that in the 12 months preceding the date of the dismissal of the appellant on 12-12-1987, the respondent had, employed more than 20 workers. As pointed above in the instant case it has to be seen whether there is any evidence on the record to show that the respondent had employed 20 or more workers on any date on or after 11-12-1988. The grievance application as well as affidavit-in-evidence is silent with regard to number of workers employed by the respondent. In the cross-?examination, however, the appellant has denied the suggestion that only 5 workers were working in the factory, but stated that 100 workers were employed in the factory. Khursheed Ahmed Junejo proprietor of the respondent establishment had examined himself. He states, that the establishment was small factory having less than 10 workers at its strength and that it was presently lying closed since November 1989. His this statement was not challenged in the cross-examination. 6. In view of the above evidence, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to the respondent's establishment and that under Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 there is no provision to order reinstatement of the worker. I do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./1984/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.