DECISION These are two appeals filed by Rounaq Ali and Muhammad Salim to challenge the impugned order passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, on 2-2-1985.
2. The facts as pleaded by the appellants, Rounaq Ali and Muhammad Salim are that Muhammad Salim was appointed on 24-11-1971. While Rounaq Ali was appointed on 6-11-1977, as workers. They plead that they continued to serve the respondent Sugar Mills without breaks and , they did work with all abilities and honesty. Fauji Sugar Mills Employees Union which was somehow not working properly, so the present appellants formed counter-union called as Mazdoor Union. This annoyed the respondent management, therefore, these appellants were given notices of termination.
3. The stand taken in both the cases by the respondents is that appellant Muhammad Salim was appointed on 12-11-1977, while the other appellant, Rounaq Ali was appointed on 6-11-1977. However, both these appellants were seasonal workers and since their work was not found satisfactory during the last two seasons they were discharged at the close of the season on account of unsatisfactory work. The Mazdoor Union was said to have lost elections and referendum. However, the allegations against the management were vehemently denied. It has also been pleaded that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and since the appellants were seasonal workers their applications are also not maintainable.
4. The matters were argued and I have heard the respective parties.
5. The main point agitated by the respondent management is that the appellants were seasonal workers. They worked for the season and they were discharged. They were re-appointed after when the work was started. Time-keeper, Muhammad Ajaib was tendered in evidence, who states that the record pertaining to May, 1981 to September, 1981, having been missed and it was not found. The arguments of the other side were that this record was suppressed. Mr. Raes M. Mushtaq, the learned counsel for the respondent management, however, submitted that the appellants were discharged at a number of times during the last few years service and this termination of the appellant was only because they were seasonal workers. The learned counsel submits that as soon as the seasons were over, they were discharged and they were re-employed whenever their services were needed. Finally, it has been urged that since the appellants were only seasonal workers, no enquiry was required even if their work was found unsatisfactory.
6. A temporary worker has-been defined to mean a workman who has been engaged to work which is of an essentially temporary nature to be finished within a period not exceeding 9 months.
To substantiate this plea, the respondents have brought on record the appointment and termination letters of the appellants and the appellants have admitted their signature on all these documents. If the appellants were to deny the correctness of the contents of these documents, it was for them to have led any other evidence but they did not do so. In fact, in view of the documents placed on record on behalf of the respondent management, the onus was shifted to the appellants to prove that the mills was functioning continuously for more than 9 months and so they would not be treated as seasonal workers. Simply because the Attendance Registers pertaining to the months from May, 1981 to September, 1981 were not produced because the same were said to be missing, it cannot be inferred that the appellants had continuous service without any break. In fact whatever registers were produced by Muhammad Ajaib, Time-keeper at the behest of the appellants clearly proved that the appellants had a number of breaks in service and this would be sufficient to conclude that the appellants were seasonal workers and had never acquired the status of permanent workmen. Accordingly, even if their work was not found satisfactory at the time of their discharge, the Law did not enjoin upon the respondent management to hold enquiry, though morally it may be needed.
7. In view of this, would agree with the impugned order and dismiss these two appeals.