2001 PLP 361 (PLC)

Syed Qamaruddin Hassan for Appellants. Rafiullah and Shamsher Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th August, 2000. By this common judgment I propose to dispose of five Appeals bearing Nos.KAR‑269 of 1999, KAR‑270 of 1999, KAR‑271 of 1999, KAR‑272 of 1999 and KAR‑273 of 1999 passed on the same date by Sindh Labour Court No.I1I respectively against respondents Omer Muhammad son of Niaz Muhammad, Muhammad Idrees son of. Syed Akber Khan, Muhammad Nasir son of Abdul Kahliq, Muhammad Sadiq son of Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Amir son of Zahiruddin. The respondents case is identical and it is to this effect. They were all employed by the appellants as general workers. However, their grievance was that they were not allowed the legal rights.' Privileges benefits admissible to them despite their repeated demands. They were also not provided with Social Security Card. Old‑Age Benefit Card and such other documents to which they were entitled. On the contrary their services were terminated by the appellants with effect from 12‑3‑1999 after they had put in about 3 year's service. Their services were brought to an end verbally with6ut giving them any written termination order. Aggrieved by such termination of services the respondents, to begin with, served grievance notice on the appellants by registered Post but in reply to the said notice the appellants mala fide denied the relationship of employer and employee with them. Therefore, they went to Labour Court and filed grievance petition which was allowed vide order of Labour Court, dated 11‑10‑1999.

2. I heard the arguments of Syed Qamaruddin Hassan for the appellants and Mr. Rafiullah Advocate for the respondents I also perused the relevant documents available on record.

3. It transpired in course of the arguments that the only point in dispute between the parties was their relationship of employer and employee. The appellants have denied that the respondents had ever been employed as employees of their Industries and, therefore, the question of allowing any rights, privileges or benefits to them did not arise. In view of this stand taken by the appellants management the burden was on the respondents to prove the said relationship. The basic document for such proof has always been the appointment order. The respondents have produced the written appointment order alongwith their affidavit‑in‑evidence. However, the appellants have denied having issued such appointment orders which according to the learned counsel for the appellants were forged. His contention was that they appear to have been prepared on computer though no computer facility was available to appellants, management at the time when the respondent's alleged appointments were made. It is stated by the respondents that their appointment orders were issued by Mr. M.M. Motala. In this connection reference may be made to the affidavit‑in‑evidence of Mr. Mumtaz Ali (Muhammad Mumtaz son of Rahim Bukhsh) Factory Manager/Finance Manager of the appellants Company. No doubt he has also stated that the appointment orders produced by the respondents were forged and fabricated yet in course of cross examination he admits that he had been working in the appellant's organization since 9‑9‑1998 and, therefore, it was correct to say that he did not know the facts with regard to the period prior to that date. He further admits that Mr. M.M. Motala had remained General Manager of the appellants's factory though he was no longer working in that capacity at the time he had given the evidence in Court. In view of the above admissions by appellant's own officer that he was not in the knowledge of the facts prior to 9‑9‑1998 the date of his transfer to the appellants's factory and further that M:M. Motala had worked as General Manager of the appellants's factory previously, some evidence is provided to the respondent's plea that their appointment orders were issued by Mr. M.M. Motala, the then General Manager of the appellants's factory. If the appellants thought that the said appointment orders were forged and fabricated, the burden shifted to them to prove their such plea. They could have produced M.M. Motala in evidence for rebuttal of the respondents's version irrespective of whether the said Mr. M.M. Motala was still in their, service or had retired from their service. If they so wished they could even disprove the respondents's claim that their appointment orders were issued by the appellants's management by Hand Writing Expert which is the normal method adopted in such disputed documents. Merely saying that the appointment orders were issued on the computer and the facility of computer was then not available to the appellants's management was not enough. Such stand could be explained away satisfactorily. My finding is that appointment orders of respondents were actually issued by the appellants's management.

4. In view of the above conclusion it goes without saying that the relationship of employer and employee between the parties was in existence. Consequently the respondents were entitled to all rights, privileges and benefits admissible to the workers under the relevant law. Since the appellants have denied the relationship of employer and employee with the respondents, it would automatically be established that respondents were not provided rights etc; due to them as such sending of their grievance notice to the appellant's management was justified. As it was not properly responded by the appellants they took the matter in Labour Court and the said Court in my opinion, has rightly accepted their grievance petition. As such the appeals filed by the management of the appellants being without force are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./22(K. Trib) Appeal dismissed.