1976 PLP 704 (PLC)

Mirza Nazir Ahmed Naz for Appellant. Rana Sakhawat Ali for Respondent. These are 2 appeals under section. 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 preferred against one consolidated order dated 20-5-1974, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Raja Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, having powers of Junior Labour Court. This order was passed on tae petitions of the appellants under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and their petitions were dismissed. Brief facts arising to these appeals are that the appellants joined service as Gardners with the respondent concern. Now they were terminated on 21-10-1973. Appellants' contention is that they were terminated without any inquiry for any misconduct or without showing any reason, whereas Management's stand is that they were not on the strength of the respondent mills but were gardners in private residence of Mr. Mazhar Karim, Managing Director of this concern. I have heard the Representatives of both the parties at length and have gone through the record as well as impugned order. Learned Representative of the appellants gave an affidavit in this our r to the effect that in the Junior Labour Court evidence was not recorded by t1se learned Presiding Officer and petitioners were not allowed to summon record of the respondent concern such as service books, pay register and payment of bonus register, therefore, he should be allowed an additional evidence. All these registers are said to have been produced before the Junior Labour Court and in one of the registers I have noticed that the Learned Representative Officer has written, "seen" under his initials. Learned Representative of the appellants by summoning this record wants to prove that to start with both the appellants were the employees of the respondent concern and they remained so from 1968 to 1971. Faiz Muhammad, Head Gardner, who was summoned as a Court witness and had stated that the appellants had been working in the mills in 1971 for some time, has admitted this fact. Manage ment is not ready to produce this record and they claim to have destroyed it as they usually do it after three years. Now, it is clear from the statement of the said Court witness that they had been working in the respondent mills and started their service as employees of the mills. Contention of the Management is that even if it is assumed that they remained employees of the respondent mills and their services were transferred subsequently to the Managing Director, in his private capacity and for 2 or 3 years they did not agitate this grievance before any authority. And there is no occasion to come to the Labour Courts, after such along time. Learned Representative of the appellants asserts that limitation to these employees starts from 24-10-1973 when they ware terminated and before that they considered themselves to the employees of the respondent mills. No doubt, they were deprived of certain amenities or facilities, which were allowed toother employees of the respondent mills or outside the mills but the CBA Union in this behalf, did raise a demand in their dispute. A copy of this demand is Exh. R. A. and it is to the effect that 2 employees i. e. appellants have not been supplied attendance cards and other facilities for the last four years. Management has failed to produce any documentary evidence by, which it could be proved that their services were terminated or they were retrenched or dismissed from service from the respondent mills. Photostat copies of the cards of fair price shops in the names of the appellants are on the file of the Junior Labour Court. These cards further support the version of the appellants that they were employees of respondent mills. Management' has given an explanation regarding these cards and it is to the effect that issuance of these cards in the names of appellants goes to prove generous behaviour of the Managing Director, even to his personal employees. This explanation is not plausible rather it amounts to misapropriation which is not expected from a Managing Director of such a big concern like Crescent Jute Products. This concern is a public limited one. Public must have it shares. Their money is not expected to be wasted like this. Managing Director, must have asked to issue these cards taking them to be the employees of the concern. For forgoing discussion I feel that order of the Junior Labour Court is not maintainable, I, therefore, set it aside and accept the appeals.