1976 PLP 891(2) (PLC(CS))

Mien Abdul Latif for Respondent. JUDGMENT. This is an appeal under section 35-0 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, against an order dated 29th November 1974, passed by the Junior Labour Court, Lyallpur, whereby the petition of the appellant for re-instatement was dismissed. The appellant Bashir Ahmed was a worker in Khalid Sizing & Power Looms Industries, Lyallpur. While working his hand was injured on 11th, October 1973. After a few days he went to his employer but he was not re-employed. On 10th November 1973, he filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations, Ordinance, 1969 for re-instatement. The Junior Labour Court was of the view that the appellant had no guaranteed or secured right for re-instatement, therefore, his application was dismissed. He has come up in appeal. The appellant has been trying hard to get some compensation for the injury received by him in Courts. Throughout litigation he remained ill-advised. In order to get compensations he fried his application under the following Acts:- (1) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. (2) Payment of Wages Act, 1936. (3) Shops and Commercial Establishment Ordinance; 1969. All the above applications were dismissed. The reason was that the appellant was never sure if the establishment, in which he was working falls under the scope of any of the above Acts or Ordinance. In order to get compensation it was his duty to prove that he was worker under any of the above enact ments. It appears that he has been taking different positions. In the present application his grievance was that his termination of service was illegal and so he must he re-instated. Under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, he can bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law for the time being in force. to the notice of the Junior Labour Court. If he had no right guaranteed or secured no redress can be provided to him. Standing Order No.12 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 relates to termination of employment. For termination of employment of a permanent workman one month's notice must be given by the employer or in case of otherwise the services can be terminated on the ground of mis conduct. It is a guaranteed right of a workman that one month's notice or wages in lieu thereof must be given before an employer can terminate the services of a workman. In the present case the services were terminated without any notice. The redress can be given if the case of the appellant is covered under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It was, therefore, necessary for the appellant to prove that this Ordinance was applicable to his case. This Ordinance is applicable to every Industrial Establishment or Commercial Establishment wherein 20 or more workman are employed. It is nowhere shown by the appellant that the factory of the respondent had employed 20 or more workers. The Lower Court has not recorded the evidence of the appellant, there is nothing of record to show that the factory of the respondent had employed twenty or more workers, therefore, I hold that Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable in this case and so the appellant had no guaranteed or secured right to get re-instatement. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.