1. DECISION ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, MEMBER.--- This appeal is directed against the order dated 14-03-2013 passed by the learned Labour Court No,HI, Karachi, in Grievance Application No,14/2006 (old No,233/2005) filed by appellant against the verbal termination of services of appellant seeking reinstatement in his job with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
2. ' Synopsis of written arguments, submitted on behalf of the appellant as well as the affidavit in ex- parte proof, have been carefully peruse R&P of the case has also been minutely looked into. It has been stated in the affidavit in ex-parte proof that appellant was employed on manual job of permanent nature by the respondent on or about 11-01- 001 where he worked until 02-01-2003, but thereafter he was verbally terminated. After verbal termination the appellant served grievance notice on the respondent and on failure by respondent to take him on duty appellant filed grievance petition No,29/2003 before the Labour Court No,II, Karachi, for his reinstatement and all consequential benefit. The respondent filed their reply statement dated 05-05-2003 where ne Mr. Mohammad Yousuf, claiming to be Factory Manager, falsely pleaded that deponent/applicant (Jalat Khan) was himself staying away from his duty. The learned Second Labour Court kept the grievance petition pending for determination of the issue of back benefits and the same issue was decided in favour of appellant vide judgment dated 3-12-2005 granting back benefits upon finding that if deponent had actually remained absent it was incumbent upon the respondent to hold e quiry, but the respondent did not hold any enquiry nor issued any charge sheet for the alleged absence. Appellant has stated in, his affidavit of ex-parte proof that respondent management reluctantly allowed him to resume duty and Seth Nadeem and Mr. Kashif pressurized him to withdraw Application No,19/2003 filed before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for recovery of Rs,126,785/-deducted from his wages, but appellant did not withdraw his application and thereafter appellant was not allowed to join the duties. Appellant has further stated that thereafter respondent management, deceitfully served upon him on 31- 3-2005 show-cause notice, back dated as 17-03-2005 alleging absence from duty. Appellant submitted his representation dated 04-04 005 requesting to be allowed to rejoin work, but the same remained un-responded.
3. ' The appellant has further stated that being deprived of the statutory entitlements including profit bonus, share in profits earned by the respondent establishment, coverage under the beneficial statutory welfare schemes such as Social Security, Employees Old Age Benefits, Group Insurance, he filed Grievance Petition No,14/2006 before Second Sindh Labour Court praying for reinstatement in service, bonus, share in the profits earned by the respondent establishment, coverage under beneficial statutory schemes such as social security, EOBI, Group Insurance, Workers Children Education and the release of unpaid wages upto 09-03-2005. The Factory Manager Mr. Mohammad Yousuf filed statement before the Labour Court and alleged that appellant had himself abandoned his job and may be directed to report for duty. Appellant has claimed that he repeatedly reported for duty, but he was not allowed. On direction by the learned Labour Court respondent filed their written statement, after more than three months, alleging appellant's voluntary absence from duty.
4. ' The appellant has also stated in his affidavit of ex parte proof that the learned Labour Court has placed much reliance on the written statement and believed the plea raised therein that appellant was himself staying away from his job. Previously, the same plea was taken by the respondent in earlier round of litigation in grievance Petition # 29/2003, which plea was rejected by the Labour Court.
5. ' In second round of litigation in grievance Petition # 14/2006 before the learned Labour Court No, III, evidence of appellant was led and it took seven months, Mr. Mohammad Yousuf, signatory of written statement, did not file his affidavit-in-evidence, but one Mr. Kashif Mehmood, in whose name affidavit-in-evidence was filed by respondent establishment, never attended the Court for his cross-examination. The appellant has asserted that respondent's case before the Labour Court was of no evidence and the written statement could not have been taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court vide order dated 14-03-2013, allowed the appellant to be reinstated in service, but rejected the case of appellant of back benefits for the period covered in the application. Against this order the appellant has filed this appeal with prayer to modify the learned Labour Court's order and to allow the applicant's grievance petition as prayed therein for reinstatement in his job with all consequential benefits, release of unpaid earned wages, bonus and share in profits, coverage under the schemes of Security, EOBI, Group Insurance etc. The respondent establishment, though duly served, chose not to contest the appeal, even after undertaking by the learned counsel Mr. Nasir Mehmood to file vakalatnama, which was never filed and after several dates appellant, upon being directed by the Tribunal, submitted his affidavit in ex pafte proof as well as his written arguments. I have thoroughly gone through the orders of the learned Labour Court and found that in the first round of litigation it was ordered by the Second learned Labour Court observing that appellant is entitled for reinstatement along with back benefits and since the appellant had already been taken up on duty by the respondent, hence the appellant was entitled only to back benefits. In second round of litigation the learned Labour Court reinstated the appellant, but did not allow the back benefits. However, inspite of reporting for duty, respondent establishment did not permit him to join, which is proved by appellant's letter dated 25-03-2013 (Annexure "AAA" with Postal Receipt and TCS Receipts filed with affidavit in ex parte proof marked as Annexures "AAA-1" and "AAA-2" respectively).
6. As the contents of affidavit in ex parte proof, so filed by the appellant, have gone unchallenged and, un-rebutted, therefore, this Tribunal has no other option left then to accept the version of the appellant.
7. ' In view of 'the above, the appeal is allowed as prayed. Respondent is directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential/back benefits including unpaid wages and bonus etc. As disclosed in the preceding paragraph within thirty days from the date of this decision.