' ZIA PERWEZ, J.--- This labour appeal is directed against the impugned order of the IVth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi where's, Application No,65 of 1995 under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 was dismissed on the ground that the applicant failed to establish that he was a workman, therefore, the grievance petition was not maintainable.
2. The appellant claimed to be an employee at the saw machine of the respondent since the year 1992. After he became a permanent workman his services were orally terminated on 31-7-1996 by Mr. M. Hussain without assigning any reason. Applicant claimed to have served a grievance notice through Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Siddiqui on 4-8-1996 but nothing on record was available as the details of the notice, postal A.D. Receipts were not provided to him. Therefore, by way of. Abundant caution, another notice dated 28-9-1996 was also served upon the respondents within the stipulated time. Respondents filed their reply statement and denied the contentions of the applicant in toto. They pleaded that the applicant was not a workman as the number of employees in their establishment was less than 20. Appellant filed his affidavit-in-evidence as Exh.3 and was cross-examined. Respondents produced Muhammad Hussain, a partner of the firm, as Exh.4. He was also cross-examined.
3. Representatives of the parties were allowed to file their respective written arguments. It appears that during the course of writing judgment dated 23-9-1999, the learned Labour Court observed that the respondents' witness had disclosed during the cross-examination that they maintain attendance register and payment of wages register and, in order to ascertain that the number of workmen working in the establishment was not more than 20, the respondents were directed to produce the record.
4. On production of the record, objections were filed by the appellant followed by reply on behalf of respondents. These objections were dismissed by the learned Labour Court on 12-7-2000 by a separate order when the main application was dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
6. Contention of Mr. Nishat Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Labour Court acted illegally in placing reliance upon documents and record called for, which was neither produced in evidence nor exhibited before the learned Court in evidence and the order being based on extraneous material was illegal and was liable to be set aside, particularly, when the appellant was not permitted to cross-examine the respondents' witness on this point even after request was made before the learned Labour Court.
7. Mr. Muhammad Umar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has referred to the reply to the objections raised by the appellant before the Labour Court regarding production of the record. He has categorically argued that the documents called for by the Labour Court were neither filed by the respondents on their own nor formed part of evidence at the initial stage. It was only fluring cross-examination that the question about existence of these documents were put to the witness Muhammad Hussain, Ex11-.4 by Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative for the appellant.
Even then the respondents' witness, after replying to the questions put in cross-examination, was not required to file the documents. However, at the stage of writing the final order, the Labour Court felt that the documents be examined and summoned the documents on its own, which is within the competence of the powers of the learned Labour Court, as such the order does not suffer from any infirmity. He relied on the case of Mustehkum Cement Limited v. Abdul Rashid and others 1998 PLC 172, Qaiser Mirza v. A.F.K. Industries 2001 PLC 337, Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Proprietor Haji Ramzan Weaving Factory and others 2001 PLC 381, Board of Governors Aitchison College, Lahore v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 2001 PLC 589 , Kim Silk Factory v. Asghar Ali 1980 PLC 22 and Roche Pakistan Limited v. The Sindh Labour Appellant Tribunal and others 1993 PLC 2.
8. During the course of arguments, Mr. Nishat Warsi learned counsel for the appellant, was asked specifically as to the powers of the Court to call for the record with any of the parties and examine the same. While conceding to this position, he only relied upon the objections filed and pressed for the right of cross-examination.
9. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, after the case had been finally heard and reserved for judgment, the evidence produced on record by the parties during evidence was sufficient for disposal of the case on the ground that the appellant failed to discharge his burden by bringing evidence on record to the effect that he was a workman. Mere fact that the appellant was a poor man and could not do so is not a valid ground for discharging the burden as pleaded in the instant case. The learned counsel for the appellant could not produce any law that the Labour Court was not empowered to call for the record and examine the same under any law, so as to show that the Court acted illegally.
10. As there is no evidence on record to prove that the appellant was a workman within the meaning of section 1(4)(a) of the I.R.O. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.