' AJMAL MIAN, J.-This is a petition against the order, dated 5th November, 1979 passed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeals Nos, KAR 159/78 and KAR 189/78.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was employed with respondent No, 3 on temporary basis for a period of two months, with effect from 22nd July, 1975.
Upon the expiry of above period of two months the services of the petitioner were terminated by a notice, dated 18th September, 1975, with effect from 19th September, 1975. It is the case of the petitioner that he was re-employed immediately thereafter. However, it is the case of respondent No, 3 that he was not re-employed. ' It seems that on 19th November, 1976 petitioner served a grievance notice under section 25-A of the alleging therein, that his services were illegally terminated orally on 7th November, 1976. The above notice was replied to by respondent No, 3 on 1st February, 1976 wherein it was pointed out that the petitioner was employed temporarily for a period of two months and that his services were terminated by the above notice, dated 18th September, 1975 with effect from 19th September, 1975. The petitioner filed an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. On 15th February, 1977 in the Vth Labour Court at Karachi. The above application was resisted by respondent No,
3. The learned Labour Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties by its order, dated 24th June, 1977 ordered the re-instatement of the petitioner. Respondent No, 3 being aggrieved by the above order filed Appeal No, KAR 203/77 which was allowed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in terms of para. 20 of the order which reads as follows : "20. In the circumstances I allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Labour Courts and remand the cases to the Labour Courts concerned for disposal of the cases on the basis of their finding with regard to the question of the condonation of delay. The aggrieved parties shall be entitled to file appeals raising all the question on facts as well as law including the question of the condonation of delay."
' After the above remand order the case was heard by the First Labour Court at Karachi, which by its Order, dated 22nd April, 1978 held that the application of the petitioner under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Was barred by limitation' and therefore, dismissed the same. Against the above order petitioner filed the aforesaid appeal No, KAR 159/18, whereas respondent No, 3 filed the aforesaid appeal No, KAR 189/78. Both the above appeals were taken up together and the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal by its aforesaid order, dated 5th November, 1979 allowed respondent No, 3's above appeal but dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition,
2. In support of the above petition, Mr. All Amjad learned counsel for the petitioner has urged as follows :
(1) that the case was remanded only on the question of considering the delay in filing of application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Should be condoned or should not be condoned and, therefore, the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was not justified in deciding the appeal of respondent No, 3 on merits.
(ii) That even otherwise the finding of the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal on the question of fact is perverse and contrary to the record. On the other hand Mr. Qamaruddin, learned counsel for the respondent No, 3 has contended as under :
(i) That the remand order, dated 22nd April, 1978 of learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal is clear on the point that the parties were given the right to file appeal even on merits after the decision of the Labour Court on the question of condonation of the delay.
(ii) That the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal is supported by evidence on record and therefore, this Court in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction will not interfere with the above finding of fact.
3. Adverting to the first contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be observed that under above-quoted para. 20 of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal order, dated 22nd April, 1978 it was observed that .The aggrieved parties shall be entitled to file appeals raising all the questions of facts as well as law including the question of the condonation of delay. From the above-quoted para. 20, it is evident that the scope of the appeal before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal was not confined to the question of condonation of the delay. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal could go into the question of merits.
4. Reverting to the second contention, it may be observed that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was employed temporarily for a period of two months through an appointment letter. His services were terminated by a notice, dated 18th September, 1975 with effect from 19th September, 1975 in terms of the appointment letter. Both the above documents contained the petitioner's signature which he admitted before the Labour Court. As observed hereinabove the ease set up by the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was re-employed immediately after the termination of his services. In this regard it may be observed that neither in his grievance notice nor in his application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The petitioner has given the date of re- employment but has made vague averment that he was re-employed immediately thereafter. The petitioner did not produce any document from respondent No, 3 to indicate that he was re- employed. His evidence comprised of himself P.W. 1, Ghulam Husain P.W. 2, Khanbaz P.W. 3 and Zahir Shah P.W. 4 and six envelopes which the petitioner allegedly received after 19th September, 1975 at the address of respondent No,
3. On the other hand respondent No, 3 examined one Mr. S.H.
Shah, Chief Accountant of respondent No, 3 who produced the pay roll, overtime payment sheets from July, 1975 to November, 1976.
' Mr. All Amjad has referred to the admission of respondent No, 3's above witness in the cross- examination which reads as follows : " I do not remember if there was any worker in production department by name Muhammad Arshad in October, 1976. I cannot say if he was made permanent in February, 1977. I produce photostat copy of our letter, dated 1st February, 1976 (Exh. 5/A) (Note. Produced from the file of Mr. Azad), salary sheet for October, 1975 does not show that one Muhammad Arshad was paid wages of 11 days. It is correct that salary sheets for November, 1975 till February, 1976 do not contain the name of Muhammad Arshad and the wages earned by him. The receipts of Miss Malike Begum, Miss Hamida Begum and Miss Razia Sultana are not available for the months of September, 1975 but their names appear in the salary register. It is correct that salary register is maintained for all the temporary workers for that particular month. It is correct that the receipts of six persons appearing on salary register are not available on the record for the month of September, 1975. It is correct that there are 22 workers' names appearing on salary register and receipts for the month of December, 1975, but overtime receipts show that there were 25 workers. Different serial numbers have been given in receipt, payment register and overtime register, but they are purely for the purposes of accounting and they are not workers' serial numbers."
' It has been urged by Mr. Ali Amjad that from the above admission, it is evident that respondent No, 3's record does not reflect correct position in view of the admission of the above witness that there are 22 workers' names appearing on the salary register and receipts for the month of December, 1975 but overtime receipts show that there were 25 workers. It has been vehemently urged by him that admittedly there were three more workers than reflected in the salarly register for the month of December, 1975. In our view the above argument is based on surmises and conjectures. No question was put to respondent No, 3's witness as to the mode of payment of salary by respondent No, 3 after the alleged re-employment of the petitioner immediately after termination of his services with effect from 19th September, 1975 upto the alleged period of 7th November, 1976. The record produced by respondent No, 3 indicates that the petitioner was not paid a single pie nor his name appears in the above record.
5. We are inclined to hold that once petitioner admitted the factum that his services were terminated, with effect from 19th September, 1975 in terms of the appointment letter the burden of proof was on him to show that he was factually re-employed. As observed hereinabove the petitioner has not even given the date of re-employment either in the grievance notice or in the application under section 25-A. The learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove re-employment. It cannot be denied that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal is a Court of competent jurisdiction to give finding on the question of fact. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court even if we were to take a different view on the basis of the evidence on record. It will suffice to observe that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal is neither perverse nor contrary to record.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.