DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made by the appellant for re-instatement under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent and was working as Munshi.
His service was terminated on 29th February, 1976 under section 19 of the West Pakistan Shops & Establishment Ordinance without any charge-sheet or inquiry. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that since there were hardly 13 persons working in the respondent concern the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was not applicable and his service was terminated under the Shops and Establishment Ordinance.
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court found in favour of the respondent and dismissed the application.
4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. There is oral as well as documentary evidence to establish that about 13 persons were in the employment of the respondent and working there.
The appellant had previously taken some proceedings for the recovery of his wages by approaching the authority under the Shops and Establishment Ordinance. All along he had been claiming that the Shops and Establishment Ordinance was applicable. Indeed, an admission on a point of law does not operate as estoppel, but a presumption arises that the number of persons employed by the respondent were always less than 20. It is unnecessary to refer to the various documents which had been produced by the respondent as the same had been dealt with by the learned Presiding Officer.
5. The appellant failed to lead reliable evidence to establish that 20 or more persons were in the employment of the respondent. Even the strike notice which was served shows that there were only 13 employees. It was, however, argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that at one time the Office of the Social Security Institution had inspected the business premises of the respondent and found that there were 25 persons working and, therefore, the respondent was called upon to deposit the necessary charges for all those persons. The learned counsel relying upon this referred me to section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance which lays down that if on any one day in the preceding 12 months 20 or more persons were employed the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable. There can be no dispute about this provision of law but the Officer of the Social Security Institution had visited the premises on 15th October, 1973 whereas the service of the appellant was terminated on 29th February, 1976, i. e. More than one year after the inspection or visit. Consequently, section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance has no application. On the other hand, there is also substance in the argument that on account of Eid some more persons were employed, being a dry cleaner's concern in order to cope up with the additional work and so it was merely a temporary phase. Thus the visit of the Officer of the Social Security Institution is of no avail to the appellant. It may be distinctly understood that I am not proceeding to lay down a rule to case some additional persons are appointed to meet an emergency or as a temporary phase the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 is thereby not applicable. But the Standing Order can still be invoked if on any one day preceding the 12 months, 20 or more persons are employed irrespective of the emergency or some other temporary phase.