' The Present Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution has been filed by Shanghai Silk Mills to challenge an order of the Presiding Officer of the Junior Labour Court (Mr. Azizullah Shah) as well as the order passed by Labour Court No, IV, Karachi (Mr. Abdul Hamid Baloch). Whereby proceedings under section 25-A of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance were decided in favour of respondent Muhammad Sharif, who was ordered to be re-instated with full back benefits. I have heard Mr. S. S. Jahangir Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. The respondents are absent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had terminated the services of respondent Muhammad Sharif upon which the latter filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This case was heard and decided ex parte on 4-7-1975 in favour of respondent Muhammad Sharif. The petitioners thereafter had filed an appeal before the Labour Court and such appeal had been allowed and the case was remanded once again for rehearing.
The case again came up before the same Junior Labour Court on 21-8-1975.
' The petitioners who were the 'respondents before the Junior Labour Court were absent. The Junior Labour Court passed an ex parte order and directed respondent's re-instatement in services with full back benefits. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before the Sind Labour Court which has also been dismissed.
3. The impugned order in the present petition was passed ex parte by the Junior Labour Court. In the order dated 21-8-1975, it is stated that process to the petitioners were sent through bailiff for 13- 8-1975, but it was returned undelivered with the endorsement that the factory of the petitioners was closed. The Junior Labour Court again ordered for the issuance of the notice to the petitioners by registered post for the adjourned date of hearing viz. 21-8-1975. But even this notice which was sent by registered post was returned undelivered with the same remarks that the factory of the petitioners was closed. Mr. Jahangir Khan has only contended before me that in the circumstances of this case proper service had not been effected. I find no substance in this contention. The learned Advocate has not been able to challenge the fact of two attempts having been made by the Junior Labour Court to have the petitioners served. The first notice was sent through a bailiff and the second by registered A/D post. On both occasions service could not be effected for the reasons that the factory of the petitioners was closed. Under section 27 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act VI of 1956, a presumption attaches in relation to service when a communication is sent properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post. In the fact of such legal presumption the burden is on the petitioners to show that service was not properly effected. Such burden has not been discharged by the petitioners. The learned. Advocate has however invited my attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Messrs Allied Silk Mills of Pakistan v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1). This judgment also does not advance the case of the petitioners and is clearly distinguishable. On facts it is stated in the judgment that in spite of the ordering issue of notice no such notice was issued. What is more that in this judgment a void order had been challenged. This judgment is also on con- cession by the opposite-party. In the case of Munawwar Hussain v. Superintendent Engineer, Sukkur (2), a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan considered the effect of service by registered post. The learned Judges came to the conclusion that in cases where notice is sent by registered A./D. Post. a presumption of service arises and burden then is on the party to show that proper service had not been effected.
4. Applying the above principle to the facts of the instant case I find that two attempts were made by the Junior Labour Court to serve the petitioners. On each occasion the factory was closed. It is stated before me that the owner of the factory had left for United States of America. However, even if that be so the person who was running the affairs in his absence could have made an appearance.
5. For all the above reasons I find, no substance in this petition which is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there would be no order as to costs.
(1) 1976 PLC 198 (2) PLD 1971 Kar. 733