' The 2 appellants, who were employed as weavers in the respondent-Mills, filed a Joint grievance petition before the learned IIId Labour Court, alleging that they had been wrongly removed from service with effect from 4th November, 1979, without any orders in writing and praying for direction to the respondent-Mills to re-instate them in service with full back benefits.
2. The learned Labour Court has rejected the grievance petition of the 2 appellants on the grounds, firstly, that as it has not been established that 20 or more persons are employed in the respondent- Mills, the Standing Orders are not applicable to the employees of the said Mills, that secondly, the contention of the appellants that they were permanent workmen is incorrect as in fact they were employed as Badli workers, and that lastly, it appears that the appellants have themselves absented from work and they had not been removed from service by the respondent-Mills.
3. In support of its findings that the Standing Orders are not applicable to the employees of the respondent-Mills and consequently, the grievance petition of the appellants is not maintainable, the learned Labour Court relied upon the evidence of Mohammad Ashraf, s partner in the respondent-Mills as also the Payment and Attendance Registers of the respondent-Mills which showed that at no time the respondent-Mills had employed more than 20 workmen. Although both the appellants, in their evidence before the learned Labour Court asserted that the number of employees in the respondent-Mills exceeded 20 the learned Labour Court rejected this evidence, firstly, because the evidence of the 2 appellants on this point was discrepant and secondly, no tangible evidence was led by the appellants in support of their assertion that more than 20 workmen were employed in the respondent-Mills. It may be pointed out that whereas according to appellant Shah Baoo Ali Jan, the number of employees in the respondent-Mills was 27, according to appellant Sher Afzal, the number of employees in the said Mills was only 22. Moreover, none of the other workmen employed in the respondent-Mills was examined to show the number of the workers in the respondent-Mills. It has been consistently held by this Tribunal the, where an establishment disputes the fact that the number of employees employed in it is less than 20, the burden of establishing that the number' of employees therein is 20 or more is on the workman who so contends. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Labour Court rightly held that the Standing Orders are not applicable to the employees in the respondent-Mills. On the second point, namely whether the appellants are Badli workers, the learned Labour Court has relied upon the appointment orders of the appellant which bear the thumb- impressions of the appellants. There can thus be no dispute about the genuineness of these documents. It may be that these appointments orders were not delivered to the appellants, as required by law, but that would not necessarily make the documents non-genuine. I am, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the 2 appellants were Badli workers and hence, their services could be terminated without notice.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same In limine.