1998 PLP 313 (PLC)

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondents Date of hearing: 6th March, 1997. This appeal arises from order of the Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of one Kaleemullah worker was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service within 15 days with full back benefits.

2. Respondent Kaleemulah was employed in appellant Plastic Factory and his job was to operate the machines. On 7-3-1995 Kaleemullah was seriously injured while working on the Moulding Machine at the appellant factory. He sustained crush injury on his right hand thumb and middle finger. He was taken to the Hospital where he remained under treatment up to 16-4-1995. He was discharged with advise to take further rest. Thereafter, the respondent reported for duty but he was not allowed to resume duty by the management nor was he paid his wages for this period. He also produced Medical Certificate before the management for 7 % disability of his right hand and claimed compensation of Rs.7,

000. On 1st June, 1995 he sent his representation that he was not being allowed to resume duties and the management put off his resumption of duty for one or other excuse nor was he being paid the compensation for the injury sustained. That he should be allowed to presume his duties and he should, be paid his legal dues. Ultimately the respondent filed his petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. before the Labour Court.

3. The management raised various objections to the re-employment of the worker. Some of these objections were that grievance notice had not been served on the management. That the number of employees was less than

20. That the compensation of Rs.7,000 could only be awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and not the Labour Court. Subsequently the amount of Rs.7,000 was paid by the management in Court on 6-2-1996 and withdrawn by the worker.

4. During the proceedings the petitioner filed his affidavit. About six months was given to the management for cross-examination but they persisted in absenting themselves on the dates of hearings. Ultimately the petitioner's evidence was closed. The learned Labour Court found that the objection regarding non-service of grievance notice could not be sustained since the worker made his grievance representation Annexure C in which it was stated that he was not being taken back on duty nor he was being paid his wages. That it was stated in the petition and the affidavit that the factory employed more than 20 persons and sometimes the number of workers employed came to

50. This too has not been rebutted by the management.

5. It appears that because of the 7 % disability of the worker the appellants are reluctant to re-employ the respondent on the job. They were directed to reinstate the worker within 15 days from the date of judgment by the Labour Court namely 9th December, 1996 but till this day this direction has not been complied with and the respondent has neither been reinstated nor has he been paid the back benefits.

6. I find the judgment of the Labour Court to be proper. Same is maintained and this appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./234/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.