DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 22-9-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, Hat Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to have been employed as a worker in the respondent's factory in the capacity of a Weaver for one and a half year at the relevant time and that more than 30 workers were working in the factory but did not observe and enforce the provisions of labour laws and used to force the workers to work twelve hours a day without payment of overtime, bonus and leave salary etc., he incurred displeasure of the management, therefore, on 22-9-1985, he was verbally told by Mr. Tanveer to go away and thus, being aggrieved he sent grievance notice to the employer followed by the present grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
3. The respondent resisted the petition on the grounds that the appellant had himself left the employment, therefore, he was debarred from invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court and further that it was not correct that he had worked for one and a half year. It was also denied by the respondents that they were not observing the Labour Laws. Further, it was the case of the respondent that as did the appellant produced defective cloth on 15-9-1985, therefore, he was questioned on which he became annoyed saying that he did not wish to work anymore and left the premises and thereafter, on 22-9-1985, he had collected his dues. The respondent establishment further claimed that prior to the service of his grievance notice, the appellant had made an application to the Martial Law Authorities requesting therein only for the payment of his legal dues and not the reinstatement in service and subsequently this application was forwarded by the Martial Law Authorities to the Labour Directorate and as such, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 for his reinstatement in service with full back benefits which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Malik Sher the learned representative on behalf of the respondent management and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments submitted by both the parties. It is an admitted position on record that the appellant could establish his claim that he had put his service with the respondent management for one and a half years. On this point, Mr. S.P.
Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant has also nothing to submit. On the other hand, Mr. Malik Sher, the learned representative for the respondent establishment by the appellant is already on record of the learned Labour Court as Exh. 3-A, which shows that he joined the service on 1-3-1985 and had worked till 15-9-1985. I would, therefore, hold this version as correct. It is also an admitted position that the appellant had himself collected his dues from the respondent establishment on 22-9-1985. Therefore, the learned Labour Court is quite right in holding that the appellant has no locus stand to maintain his grievance petition. Furthermore, it has been contended by the respondent establishment that the provisions of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable. Mr. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant has failed to submit anything in rebuttal of this contention. I, therefore, find the impugned order is well-reasoned and needs not to be interfered with.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.