1988 PLP 819 (PLC(CS))

The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 17‑2‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement has been dismissed.

2. On the ground that doubling khata was closed the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 9‑7‑1986. The appellant challenged the said order in his grievance petition contending that after his removal the respondents employed other persons and did not give preference to him and that due to union activities revenge was taken from him. He also urged that persons were employed on contract basis. In support of his case he appeared as his own witness and deposed that the persons working with him at the time of termination of his services are still in service and that they are junior to him. He has, however, said that he did not know the names of those juniors. No evidence was produced by the respondents in rebuttal.

3. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents did not rebut the statement of the appellant made on oath as P.W.1. Since the appellant said that he did not know the names of the workers junior to him who had been retained in service, there was nothing for the respondents to rebut. If any junior of the appellant had been retained in service, he must have come to know of it and would have named him. As none of his juniors was retained, therefore, he said that he did not know their names. He thus, failed to establish that rule of first come last go was not adhered to. No doubt, the appellant deposed that he was victimised due to union activities but this plea could be accepted if the appellant had shown that some persons junior to him were retained in service in the same category. Even he has not disclosed the union activities.

4. It has also been argued that the plea of closing the khata has not been proved by, producing any evidence. Since the appellant came to the Court, the onus was upon him to show that he was illegally terminated from service. His oral statement was not sufficient. He could summon relevant documents to show that the khata was running and had not been closed. If the khata is running, documentary evidence of the issuance of yarn for the preparation of cloth and evidence about the quantity of cloth prepared could have been produced. If the appellant had summoned such documents and the respondents had failed to produce, only then his oral statement by way of secondary evidence could have been accepted. The learned lower Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.

5. As upshot of the discussion made above the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./522/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.