1. SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations ordi--nance, 1969, in which the applicant seeks payment of his dues from the respondent.
2. The applicant's case is that he was working as Walter in the respondent-Restaurant since 1-- years.
3. There was an industrial Dispute between the parties, and an application under section 34 of the I. R.
4. O., 1968 was pending in the Labour Court with respect to that dispute. The applicant used to attend the Court as a witness in support of the demands in the said dispute. This incurred the displeasure of the Management and, on 9th March 1971, the Manager, Abdul Rasheed called the applicant and told him that his services have been terminated from that day. The applicant was paid only 9 days' earned wages and turned out. When the applicant insisted, the Manager gave him an order in writing terminating his services on false and baseless allegation. The applicant then sent a representation dated 11th March 1971 to the respondent, under registered cover, but the respondent refused to take the delivery. The applicant states that the respondents have not paid him notice pay, Gratuity, Wages for Annual Leave and overtime. Hence he has moved this application for recovery of these dues.
5. The respondents, in their Reply Statement, denied that the applicant was their employee. They have also denied that there was any Industrial Dispute pending in the Court for adjudication.
6. Therefore, according to the respondent the application is not maintainable.
7. During the hearing of the application, the applicant has sworn an affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the applica--tion as stated above. He has also produced the photostat copy of the letter of termination and also the registered cover containing his representation which was refused to be accepted by the respondents: The respondents, after obtaining several adjourn-- ments for the cross-examination of the applicant, remained absent since 3rd August 1971 and none appeared on their behalf till 26th October 1971. On that day, however, an application was made by the respondents for permission to file the affidavit of their witness, which was granted. But, on the next date of hear--ing, again, the respondent remained absent and none has appeared on their behalf since then. Consequently, their side was closed. Therefore, the statement of the applicant remains unchallenged and there is no evidence in rebuttal thereof. Besides this, the denial of the respondents that the applicant was their employee has been falsified by the documents produced by the applicant, Consequently there can be no doubt that the applicant was an, employee of the respondents and his services were terminated without payment of his legal dues. The application is, therefore, allowed and the applicant is entitled to recover all his dues, he has claimed.