DECISION ' This appeal by a seaman is directed against the decision of the learned First Labour Court, given on 4-3-1980, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition claiming wages as butcher seaman.
2.. According to the grievance petition filed by the appellant before the learned Labour Court, he was allowed to 'sign on' as butcher on m. v. Safina-e-Arab for the Hajj Season 1975/1977 and worked on the said ship in that capacity with effect from 18-10.1975 upto 19-5-1976, but on signing off from the ship he was paid wages of butcher-mate- instead of wages admissible to him as a butcher. The respondents resisted the appellant's claim on the ground that not only the appellant had 'sign on' as butcher-mate but also in his discharge certificate he has been described as butcher-mate and accordingly he has been correctly paid wages admissible to a butcher-mate. It was strongly denied that the appellant ever worked as butcher or that butcher's wages were admissible to him. The learned Labour Court, on the basis of the certificate issued by the Deputy Shipping Master, Karachi, the article of agreement entered into by the appellant for the purpose of serving on Safinae-Arab and the appellants discharge certificate, came to the conclusion that the appellant had been employed only as butcher-mate and not as a butcher and hence his claim for being paid wages as butcher was without foundation.
3. I have examined the record of the case and am of opinion that the learned Labour Court very rightly disallowed the claim of the appellant. The certificate of the Deputy Shipping Master, Karachi, is to the effect that the appellant was selected as butcher-mate on 26-6-1975 and signed in the article of association on the Safina-e-Arab in the capacity of butcher-mate. The Article of Association was also produced and it shows that the appellant had signed on the same as butcher-mate and had been receiving wages accordingly. Finally, in the discharge certificate, the appellant has been shown as butcher-mate. There is no tangible evidence on record from which it can be inferred that the appellant was ever employed as butcher by the respondents. The only piece of evidence which the appellant has been able to produce in support of his claim is the Memo. Dated 8-6-1976, from the Deputy Shipping Master, Karachi, addressed to the appellant, informing him that the disciplinary committee, in its meeting held on 1-6-1975, had decided to warn him to behave properly in future and to inform him that if any report was received from the company/ship he would be demoted as butcher-mate. This Memo does seem to suggest that the appellant at that time was perhaps holding a higher appointment than that of butcher-mate but on the other hand the Memo itself describes the appellant as butcher-mate. As such, the letter is somewhat contradictory and from it no firm conclusion can be drawn that the appellant was employed or was working as a butcher.
4. For the foregoing reasons I am in agreement with the decision of the learned Labour Court that the appellant has failed to establish that he was ever employed or waa working as a butcher. I should accordingly, dismiss the appeal in limine.