' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 28th April, 1983 passed by the Sind Labour Court No, III at Karachi, dismissing the application of the appellant filed under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the appellant was employed as a Beam Piecer by the respondent Establishment and was being paid at piece rate basis. He was removed from service and was reinstated on order of Labour Court. It is alleged that he was, therefore, denied his full wages although he was performing additional work of Jobber and Helper. He claimed that since other Beam Piecers were getting Rs, 1,200 per month he should also be paid Rs, 1,200 per month, as he was getting muchless after his reinstatement by the order of the Labour Court. He, therefore, filed an application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, with a prayer that a directive be issued to the respondents that the appellant be paid at the rate Rs, 1,200 per month, with effect from 15th July, 1982 with all the differences.
3. The respondent-Establishment appeared in response to the notice of the application and resisted the claim. It was contended firstly, that the application was time-barred and secondly, that the claim of the appellant had no merit. A preliminary objection was raised with regard to the issue of bar of limitation and the learned Labour Court vide its order, dated 23rd January, 1983, decided the same in favour of the appellant. On merits it was denied that the appellant was performing any additional work of a Jobber or Helper. It was also denied that any Beam Piecer was getting Rs, 1,200 per month. It was contended that previously there were 50 looms in operation out of which 32 were closed. The result was that number of looms was reduced to 18 only and number of weavers was also reduced to 7 only. It was further contended that since the weavers were admittedly paid in proportion to production, the Beam Piecer received less wages in accordance with the settled principle that they were to be paid 10% of the total wages earned by all the weavers in that line.
4. I have perused the evidence recorded before the learned Labour Court. The appellant examined himself and Abdul Jabbar the President, Mazdoor Ittehad Union and the respondent examined Adam son of Ahmed, the Head Clerk of the respondent-Establishment. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Shafique Qureshi for the appellant and Mr. Riaz Baloch for the respondent. It has been admitted by the appellant as well as by Abdul Jabbar, President of the Union that a Beam Piecer received monthly wages at the rate of 10% of the total earnings of all the weavers in his line. It has also been admitted by them that 32 out of 50 looms were closed and number of weavers were reduced and consequently there was less production. Abdul Jabbar has also admitted that he was, therefore, earning Rs, 200 to Rs, 225 per fortnight instead of Rs, 350 to Rs, 400 per fortnight. Confronted with this situation both the appellant as well as Abdul Jabbar put forth the plea as disclosed in their evidence that the establishment should operate all the 50 looms. It was, however, admitted by Abdul Jabbar the President of the Union that there was no agreement or settlement by which the establishment could be forced to operate all the 50 looms. It is, therefore, obvious that the establishment cannot be compelled to operate all the 50 looms. It would be for the establishnent to decide keeping in view the market position and other relevant factors to give production as they deem fit in the interest of the establishment. What I further find that no Beam Piecer has been examined in support of the contention that he was getting Rs, 1,200 per month. No documentary evidence has also been produced in support of that contention which has been categorically denied by the respondent-Establishment. Accordingly, I find that the appellant has failed to substantiate his claim by any evidence whatever on the record. In view of the circumstances of the case, no other points urged by the parties need consideration. In my view, therefore. No exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Labour Court.
5. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.