1982 PLP 982 (PLC(CS))

Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Appellants. Sultan Ansari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1981. This appeal by the management of the Usman Textile Mills Limited' is directed against a decision given by the learned Second Labour Court on 22nd August, 1981, on the grievance petition filed by the respondent workman, directing the appellants herein to re-instate the respondent in service with full back benefits.

2. I have heard Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr Sultan Ahmad Ansari, who appeared for the respondent workman.

3. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has assailed the impugned decision on the sole ground that there was no evidence before the learned Labour Court to establish the claim of the respondent that he was ever in the employment of the appellants. In support of his contention, Mr. Mahmood Ghani invited my attention, firstly, to the reply, dated 29th December, 1980, given by the appellants to the respondent workman, denying the plea of the respondent that he had been employed in the appellant company and requiring him, if he persisted in the claim, to produce his appointment order, attendance card or other evidence to show that he had been employed by the appellant company; secondly, the reply statement of the appellant company wherein it has been cate gorically denied that the respondent was ever in the employment of the appellant company ; thirdly, the attendance and payment sheets of the Relling Department of the appellant company, an which Department the respondent claims to have been employed for about four years, which sheets do not contain the name of the respondent and lastly the specimen forms of the appointment letters, attendance cards and social security cards issued by the appellant company to ` its employees. Since the appellant company had throughout taken the stand that the respon dent was never employee of them, the burden of establishing that he was in the employment of the appellant company lay heavily on the respondent. This burden he has failed to discharge. The only evidence adduced by the respondent for his claim that he was employed by the appellant company is his own evidence and the testimony of one Gul Khan who is said to have been employed as a jobber in the cone-winding Department of the appellant company for about two years. The oral testimony of the respondent on this point cannot be relied upon as he was unable to produce any appointment letter, attendance card, social security card or other documentry evidence indicating that he was emp loyed by the appellant company. It is difficult to believe that though the respondent was in the employment of the appellant company for four years, as claimed by him, yet he has no documentary evidence in his possession to establish such employment. The law requires that every industrial establishment, and the appellant company is an indus trial establishment, must furnish to each workman an appointment letter indicating the terms and conditions of his employment. Failure to furnish such an appointment letter has been made a penal offence. The respondent claims that he had made a complaint to the Directorate of Labour Welfare against the appellant company for failing to issue him the appointment order, attendance card etc., but neither copies of those complaints were produced before the learned Labour Court nor any person from the Directorate of_ Labour Welfare was examined to establish that any such complaint was ever made by the respondent. In the absence of this evidence the plea of the respondent cannot be taken seriously.

4. The evidence of the respondent's witness, Gul Khan, also does not carry conviction. In the first place he was admittedly not in the employment of the appellant company when he gave evidence before the learned Labour Court. Furthermore his assertion is taken at its face value that be was employed as a jobber in the appellant company he admittedly was not employed in the Department in which the appel lant workman is said to have been employed. Moreover, even Gul Khan does not allege that he was not issued an appointment letter or attendance card but nevertheless no such order or attendance card was produced by him before the learned Labour Coin.

5. As against the unconvincing evidence led by the respondent, the appellant-Company produced the attendance sheets and the payment sheets of the Relling Department, a perusal of which sheets show that the name of the respondent is conspicuous by its absence from the said sheets. These sheets bear the thumb-impression and signature of the workmen on revenue stamps in token of receipt by them of their fort nightly wages. The genuineness of these sheets, thus, cannot be seriously doubted nor can any weight be given to the plea raised on behalf of the respondent workmen that they were prepared subsequently. An examination of these sheets further discloses that not only the names of the workmen are shown therein but also their card numbers which fact further supports the stand of the appellant company that every work man was being issued an attendance card and also an appointment letter. As already indicated, specimen forms of appointment letters, attendance card and social security card were produced by the appellant company. If the company was issuing such cards to its workmen, there was no reason why the respondent should have been signled out for being denied his legal right to receive an appointment order, attendance card or social security card. The learned Labour Court has not relied upon these specimen forms merely because they were not in respect of an employee in the Relling Department but the issue which fell to be considered by the Labour Court was not whether in the Relling Depart ment there was no practice of issuing such orders and cards but whether the respondent was singled out for being denied the right to receive his appointment order, attendance card and social security card. As already pointed out, there appears to be no reason why the respondent should have been singled out for such discriminatory treatment at the hands of the appellant company.

6. For the reason discussed by me above, I am oil the view that there is no tangible evidence on the record from which it could be con cluded that the respondent was ever in the employment of the appellant company. I would accordingly, set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal. At the time of admission o this appeal, the appellant company had deposited the back benefit awarded by the learned Labour Court to the respondent. The amount o these back benefits is ordered to be refun6e-j to the appellants. Appeal accepted.