DECISION ' These two appeals are directed against two separate but similar decisions of the learned Third Labour Court, given on 13-9-1980 dismissing the grievance petition filed by the two appellants against their alleged oral dismissal from service, on the grounds, firstly, that both the appellants had received their dues in full and final settlement and had signed stamped receipts/vouchers to that effect, secondly, that the Standing Orders are not applicable to the respondent establishment and hence the two grievance petitions are not maintainable and thirdly, that the appellants had failed to establish either that they were permanent workmen in the respondent establishment or the period of their service in the said establishment.
2. In support of his finding on the first point, the learned Labour Court has relied upon the two debit memos. Dated 13-12-1979, which according to the respondent establishment had been signed by the appellants respectively when clearing their dues with the respondent establishment at the time of leaving the said establishment. The wording of both the debit memos, is similar but the period for which each of the appellants is said to have .Worked in the respondent establishment and the dues received by them differ. The debit memo. In respect of appellant Abdul Wahid reads that he .Worked from 12-11-1979, upto 13-12-1979 whereafter he left, that he produced during this period 1,136i meters and was paid Rs, 610.06 as wages, including dearness allowance, in full and final settlement. The debit memo. In respect of appellant Nizamuddin reads that he worked in the respondent establishment from 12-11-1979 upto 13-12-19799 whereafter he left service, that he produced during this period 1,204i meters and that he was paid wages amounting to Rs, 639-87, including dearness allowance, in full and final settlement. I have compared the signature of the appellant on the stamped debit memos. With the admitted signatures of the appellants on their grievance petitions, memos., appeal and authority given by them to their learned counsel and am satisfied that they tally. I am, therefore, of the view that the 2 debit memos. Have been signed by the respective appellants. No doubt they have denied their signature on these debit memos. But I find no substance in their denial as a comparison of the signature on these memos. With the admitted signatures of the respective appellants establishes beyond doubt that the debit - memos. Have been signed by the respective appellants.
3. Now, as regards the second ground on which the learned Labour Court has based its decision, namely, that it has not been established that the Standing Orders are applicable to the respondent establishment, although the appellants claimed that as many as 50 workmen are employed therein, they did not examine any one of such workmen nor gave their memos. And designations.
On the other hand, the respondent establishment produced their attendance register from which it appears that at no time the number of workmen in the said establishment was twenty or more. Mr. Ali Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the attendance register is unreliable and that the respondent establishment deliberately avoided to produce the payment register which could have shown that the number of workmen in the said establishment was about
50. If, however, the appellants relied upon the payment register they should have applied to the learned Labour Court for its production. This they failed to do. As such, they now cannot make a grievance of the fact that it was not produced. The appellants: grievance petitions thus are not maintainable on this account also.
4. Lastly, as to the period for which the appellants were employed in the respondent establishment, the debit vouchers signed by them show that each of the appellants worked for only 32 days. As such, they no not fall in the category of permanent workmen.
5. For the reasons stated above, 1 would concur in the decisions of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss both the appeals in limine.