1979 PLP 325 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Appellant claiming to be a permanent worker as Warper in employment of respondent and to have been removed from service without any reason‑Respondent denying such claim‑Appellant refusing to answer whether any Warping machine installed in respon dent's factory‑Refusal to answer such pertinent question enough .to repel appellant's contention‑Identity card and some slips produced by appellant in support of his claim disputed by respondent but not proved by producing signatories to such documents contention that one of four factories owned by respondent contained a warping machine and ownership of all such factories proved by employment of a common chaukidar‑Held, not correct‑Various owners could join together to employ one chaukidar and not necessary for each employer to engage a separate chaukidar. This is an appeal against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. If, Karachi, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. The short point involved in this case is whether the appellant was in the employment of the respondent. It was claimed by the appellant that he was a permanent worker in the employment of the respondent and was serving as Warper since 4 months and suddenly his services were terminated on 11‑6‑1977 without any rhyme or reason. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. The application was resisted and it was denied that the appellant was either in the employment of the respondent or there was any Warper Machine and, therefore, the question of employment of the appellant as Warper did not arise. The learned Labour Court after recording the evidence found against the appellant and dismissed the application.

3. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, as none appeared on behalf of the respondent. I see no reason to interfere with the Orders passed by the Labour Court. Elaborate reasons had been given in rejecting the claim of the appel lant. It is pertinent to note, as pointed out by the learned Presiding Officer, that when the appellant was asked whether there was any Warper Machine installed in the factory of the respondent, he refused to answer and instead claimed to be in the service of the respondent, The refusal to answer a pertinent and definite question is by itself enough to repel the contention raised by the appellant. He, however, produced identity card and some slips to support this claim that he was in the employment of the respondent but these were rejected by the learned Presiding Officer by cogent reasons. None of the signatories to the aforesaid documents was called by the appellant to prove their genuineness which had been disputed by the respondent. The burden was upon the appellant but he failed to discharge it.

4. It was, however, urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that there were 4 factories within same premises and one of the factories was running Warping Machine and all those Factories belonged to the respondent but when I asked to point out whether there was any evidence to show that the factories situated within the premises were owned by the respondent, he failed to satisfy me. What he stated was that a common chowkidar was employed. The employment of a common chowkidar did not mean that all the factories belonged to one owner. The various owners can join together to employ one chowkidar to save money. It is not necessary that each employer must engage a separate chowkidar when the factories are situated in the same premises and one person can conveniently look after them. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.