' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 9th July, 1979, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,
1. Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted and they were directed to be re-instated in service with back benefits.
Since the questions of fact and law involved in the two appeals are the same, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment, other hand, not only the witness of the appellants, Anis Ismail, who is partner in the appellant establishment, has categorically denied that at any time the number of workmen in the appellant establishment exceeded 19 but he has produced the payment registers as also attendance registers and an examination thereof indicates that the number of workmen in the appellant establishment never exceeded 19. The payment and attendance registers have been produced not only for the period prior to 21st June, 1981, when the services of the respondent are said to have been terminated, but also for the subsequent period. These attendance registers have been checked and signed by the Factories Inspectors and this circumstance lends official support to the said registers. As far as the payment registers are concerned they contain signatures of the workman, including the signatures of the workman, on revenue stamps. This circumstance, thus, gives authenticity to the payment registers.
No doubt the attendance registers indicate only the names of the adult workers but it has been explained in the statement of witness Anis Ismail, that apart from the adult workers no other person is employed in the appellant establishment.
5. In order to further examine the question whether the appellant establishment ever employed more than 19 workers witness, Anis Ismail was asked to produce and did produce a copy of the 'survey report' submitted by the appellant establishment in compliance with the- orders of the Director, Social Security Institution, dated 29th April, 1980 as to the total number of employees in the appellant establishment. The 'survey report' indicates that the total number of employees in the appellant establishment was 17. This circumstance, therefore, lends further support to the contention made on behalf of the appellant establishment the member of employees in the appellant establishment never exceeded 19 an hence the Standing Orders are not applicable to it or to its employees.
6. The learned Labour Court has observed that the contention of the respondent workman that more than twenty workers have been employed in the appellant establishment is indirectly supported by the wages register. It is not clear how this conclusion was reached by the learned Labour Court when he has himself observed that the wages register indicates number of workmen from 16 to 19. It is not possible to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Labour Court, in the absence of any evidence to that effect on record, that because the wage register remained in the custody of the appellant establishment therefore the number of workmen in the establishment must be more than what is indicated in the payment register.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of opinion that there is no tangible evidence on record from which it can be concluded or inferred that the number of workmen with the appellate establishment at the relevant time was more than 19. On the other hand, the documentary evidence produced through witness, Anis Ismail, seems to support the claim of the appellant establishment that the number of employees therein has always been less than twenty. I would, accordingly, set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal.