DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30-1-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, who had dismissed the petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been employed with the respondent for more than 30 years as Driver cum-Crane Operator and all of a sudden on 8-8-1984, he was dismissed from service without notice of charge-sheet in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and that his dismissal was mala fide because the respondent had annoyed as the appellant had demanded profit bonus, 5% workers participation double over-time wages and other amenities/ facilities. He, therefore, being aggrieved with his dismissal had submitted his petition before the Labour Court
3. The respondent resisted the petition on the main ground that the appellant was never an employee of the respondent and that there was no relationship of master and servant between them, therefore, the question of his dismissal from service by the respondent did not arise, hence his petition could not be sustained and was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and that the appellant was cross- examined by the respondent, while the respondent was not cross-examined by the appellant, hence his evidence had been un-rebutted and unchallenged.
5. I have heard Mr. S. A. Channa, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Munib Ahmed Khan the learned counsel for the respondent and have also perused the record and proceedings of case. It is an admitted position on record that on 8-8-1984, after receiving payment, the appellant had left the jab of Haji Ramzan H. Soomar and that when he had sent the grievance notice to Anwar Soomar, the respondent herein, he was not in Pakistan and gone to Japan. On the other hand, it is established from the un-rebutted and unchallenged evidence of the respondent that neither the appellant was employed by the respondent nor there was a relationship of 'master & servant' between them. The burden to prove this relationship was upon the appellant, to which, he miserably failed to discharge. In view of this factual position, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.
6. For the above reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is dismissed accordingly.