1982 PLP 899 (PLC(CS))

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Ss. 25-A, 36 & 37 -- Grievance petition-Adjudication of-- Procedure-Special oath--Petition against alleged unlawful oral termination of service after 3 years of service-Relationship of master and servant denied by respondent

No proof except bare word of petitioner to support that he has ever employed by respondent Grievance petition dismissed-Plea before Appellate Tribunal that non-issuance of appointment letter was a practice of respondent company and as such representative of respondent be given special oath--Request not granted-Held: no law empowers Appellate Tribunal to require any party to take special oath. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant: Date of hearing: 31st January, 1982. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Labour Court, given on 20th December 1981, dismissing the appellant workman's grievance petition challenging his alleged termination of service by the respondent company on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish that, he was ever employed by the respondent company.

2. The appellant has not produced any order of his appointment in the respondent company or the order of his termination of services or any other evidence indicating that he drew wages from the respondent company or was in its employment. The only evidence led by him in support of his claim that he was orally employed by the respondent com pany and his services were orally terminated is his bare word and an attendance card bearing his name. Now so far as the oral testimony of the appellant is concerned, not only is it strongly denied by the respon dent company that the appellant was ever employed by them but further it cannot be relied upon for though be claims to have been in the emp loyment of the respondent company for over three years he was unable to produce any leave pass, reference to the Social Security Institution for medical treatment, membership of a trade union in the respondent com pany, pay slip or any other documentary evidence showing that he was in the employment of the respondent company. As regards the attendance card produced by the appellant it neither bears the name of the respon dent company nor it has been issued by the said company. Furthermore, it has not been established that the initials on the attendance card are of the time-keeper of the respondent company.

3. Faced with the above position, Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim, the learned counsel of the appellant, suggested that the authorised repre sentative of the respondent company be given a special oath as it was a practice in the said company not to issue appointment orders to workers. He however was unable to refer me to any provisions of law empowering me to require any party to take special oath. His request thus cannot be acceded to.

4. As there is no evidence on the record showing that the appellant was ever in the employment of the respondent company, I would agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the appeal In limine.