DECISION ' This appeal is directed against an order of IIIrd Sind Labour Court Karachi, who allowed the petition of the respondent, Bakhat Amin, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, by his order, dated 14th November, 1984. In the same order he dismissed the petition of one Jafreen.
2. The facts are that Bakhat Amin filed a petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, contending that his services were terminated on 16th February, 1984 without passing an order in writing and without assigning any reason. According to the respondent, the management was annoyed with him because he demanded rights and benefits accrued to him under various labour laws. The respondent sent a grievance notice, dated 13th April, 1984 to which a reply was sent that the respondent was not an employee of the appellants. The respondent relied on the photostat copy of the Attendance Card to prove him employment with the appellants.
3. The stand taken by the appellants is that the so-called Attendance Card was a forged document. It was contended further that because the respondent was not in the employment of the appellant, there was no question of termination of this services or making any written or oral order for the same purpose.
4. In the Labour Court the evidence of Bakhat Amin, respondent was recorded and his witness, Inam Gul was also examined.
5. I have heard the two counsel in this appeal and have perused the impugned order. The evidence of Inam Gul is to the effect that he had seen Bakhat Amin working as a Cone-winder in the factory of the appellants. The two witnesses, Bakhat Amin and Inam Gul were not shaken in the cross- examination, The evidence of Bakhat Amin and Inam Gul was supported by the Attendance Card.
He has produced a photostat copy which had no evidentiary value but the learned counsel for the appellants came to his aid and had asked in the cross-examination whether he had any original attendance card. The respondent replied in affirmative and produced original attendance card Exh. A-1. It was also during the course of cross-examination that the respondent produced another attendance card issued in his favour as Exh. A-2. The attendance card issued in the month of April Exh. A-1 was countersigned by one Mr. Baig, the Timekeeper, whereas the other attendance card Exh. A-2 for the month of May was countersigned by one Mr. Abid, the Timekeeper. The appellants did not disown the attendance cards and did not say that no such attendance cards were issued to their workers, but their only, plea was that the attendance cards were forged. The appellants, therefore, should have examined the two Timekeepers whose signature appear on the attendance cards. Both of them were readily available. Mr. Shafiqul Hassan who was Manager of the Mills was examined by the appellants. He did not say in his evidence that attendance cards issued to the workers were, signed by him or that stamp of the Mills was affixed on them. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the printed attendance cards of the appellant Mills which extablish that the respondent, Bakhat Amin was in fact in the employment of the appellants. The two attendance cards give credance to the oral testimony of Bakhat Amin and Inam Gul.
6. The Labour Court believed that Bakhat Amin was in the employment of the appellant's Mills and that there was no evidence to the contrary. The appellant produced photostat copy of a portion of Payment Register-sheet for the month of May, 1983, in which the name of respondent, Bakhat Amin was not mentioned. The Labour Court attached no value to this piece of evidence and rightly so because the register was not signed by any person, Manager or the Director. Even the signatures of the workers were not there. It appears that Bakhat Amin was a worker with the appellant Mills and his evidence and the evidence of Inam Gul support the contention of the respondent. The services of the respondent were terminated illegally.
7. The Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Bakhat Amin. This appeal would, therefore, fail in the light of the above discussion. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.