1983 PLP 223 (PLC)

S. 1 (4)-Applicability of Ordinance-Number of employees claimed to be more than 50-No evidence except bare words of workman --Wages register not supporting claim-Order of Labour Court that Ordinance was not applicable, in circumstances, upheld by Labour Appellate Tribunal. Ali Ahmed for Appellant. Date of hearing : 5th May, 1982. DECISION The service of the appellant workman, who was employed in the res pondent-Company as a Tongd man, were terminated vide letter, dated 25-8-1981, on the ground that he had not been attending his duties since 30-5-1981, and had been continuously remaining absent without leave since the said date. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred a grievance petition before the learned Third Labour Court after serving the requisite grievance notice upon the respondent-Company. The learned Labour Court by its decision, given on 29-3-1982, has dismissed the appel lant's grievance petition on the ground that it is not maintainable as the Standing Orders are not applicable to the respondent-Company since it has not been established that fifty or more workmen are employed therein. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal. 2. The sole evidence which the appellant led before the learned Labour Court to establish that fifty or more workmen were employed in the respondent-Factory is his bare word that more than fifty workers are em ployed in the respondent-Factory. He, however, failed to examine any of those workmen. Moreover, though he claimed that the respondent em ployed as many as twenty Tongs men, of whom he was one, he was also able to give the name of only one other tongs man. He also claimed that there were three totawallas employed in the respondent-Factory but was able to give names of only two of them. Likewise he claimed that there were two persons employed to put the material in the furnace but he was able to give the name of only one person. His evidence, thus, has wholly failed to establish that the number of workmen in the res pondent-Factory was fifty or more. On the contrary it suggests that the number of workmen in the factory was far less. As against this unsatisfactory evidence led by the appellant the respondent produced the register of wages of workmen for the period from January, 1980 to December 1981. An examination of this register shows that during the period of twelve months preceding the termination of services of the appellant the total number of workmen in the respondent-factory had never exceeded fourteen. The register of wages bears the signatures/thumb-impression of the work men in token of having received wages: The appellant was shown this register but he denied his thumb-impression against his name. It is claimed by Mr. Ali Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the register is bogus and has been subsequently manufactured in order to support the claim of the respondent that :less than twenty workmen are employed therein. The register appears to have been kept in the regular course of business and hence a degree of authenticity would attach to it. However, even if the register of wages is totally ignored there would not be any tangible evidence to show that the number of workmen in the respon dent Factory was not less than twenty, what to say of the number being not less than fifty. It is an admitted position that the respondent-Factory is registered with the Sind Employees' Social Security Institution under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. Under the said Ordinance the number of workmen employed by a registered establishment has to be intimated to the Social Security Institution and contributions in respect of such workmen have to be said. If the claim of the appellant was genuine 'hat the number of workmen employed in the respondent-Factory was more than fifty or even more than twenty that could have been estab lished by his summoning the requisite record from the Social Security Insti tution, which he failed to do. 3. Since there is only the bare word of the appellant in support of his claim that the number of workmen employed in the respondent-Factory was more than fifty this evidence is totally unacceptable by reasons of the admissions made by the appellant himself, including the admission that there was only one shift in the respondent-Factory. I would, therefore, concur in the view taken by tile learned Labour Court that the Standing Orders are not applicable to the respondent-Factory or its employees and hence the grievance petition of the appellant is not maintainable I would accordingly dismiss the appeal in limine. Appeal dismissed.