1996 PLP 268 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(a) & S.O. 12‑‑‑Termination of services‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Employees whose services were terminated orally, had challenged their termination by filing grievance petition before Labour Court‑‑‑Grievance petition was resisted by employers contending that same was not maintainable as they had employed less than twenty persons in their establishment‑‑‑Manager of employer establishment had admitted in his cross‑examination that list of eighteen persons filed in Court did not contain names of both employees and also two sweepers‑‑‑Twenty‑four workers in fact were working in establishment besides the manager‑‑‑Oral termination of employees without giving reasons for such termination in writing, was mala fide‑‑‑Labour Court having wrongly dismissed grievance petition of employees, such order was set aside and employees were ordered to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, Representative for Appellants. Siddique Mirza for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1995 These are two connected appeals of the workers of M/s. Funland (Rani Bagh), Hyderabad in respect of their grievance applications for re‑instatement.

2. The facts are that appellant Nayab Khan was working as a Booking Clerk with the respondent's establishment and appellant Gulab Khan was working as Attendant. Since M/s. Funlamd was a commercial establishment employing 20 or more persons, these workers gave notice of forming a Workers' Union to the Registrar and a copy was also forwarded to the proprieters of Funland on 25‑1‑1994. However, this act of the appellant was resented and on the same day these two workers one of whom was General Secretary and the other Propaganda Secretary were both stopped from entering the establishment and their services were orally terminated. They served their grievance notice on the employers on 14‑4‑1994 and on getting a reply which they found to be evasive, they filed grievance petitions in the Labour Court at Hyderabad alleging that the establishment employed more than 20 persons. The respondent Funland, however, contended that they had employed less than 20 persons and they further contended that the appellant's had themselves left the job. Learned Labour Court found that the petitioner had not successfully proved that the Funland employed 20 or more workers. Their petitions were therefore dismissed as being not maintainable.

3. The only point in this appeal is whether M/s. Funland employed 20 or more persons. They have admitted that they employed only 18 persons and not

20. The learned Advocate for the appellants has however pointed out that the Manager Mansoor Ahmed Khan has in his cross‑examination admitted that the list of 18 workers does not contain the names of both the appellants. They have not shown in the evidence that the list of 18 persons filed by them contained any other workers employed in place of the appellants. Their dates of appointment have not been shown in the list. It is on the other hand the case of the workers that two more sweepers working part‑time have also been omitted from the list and actually there were 24 workers besides the Manager. In view of the admission of the Manager there is prima facie evidence that there were 20 or more workers. It was then for the respondent Funland to rebut this evidence and show that the actual figure employed was less than 20, but this they have not done. It is also in evidence that the names of the workers forming the union were sent to the Registrar and if they had been less than 20 workers, the application for registration could not have been made. The termination of the services of the appellants is also mala fide and no orders in writing were given to the appellants with reasons for the termination. Their case is that the workers themselves left the establishment and this case is hard to believe in view of the grievance notice of the workers.

4. The decision of the Labour Court is, therefore, set aside and the appeals are allowed. The appellants may be re‑instated in service with back benefits within 30 days. H.B.T./2577/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.