1. The applicant has filed this application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 stating therein that he is the permanent workman of the respondents having served them as a Weaver since 1961, and he demanded some of his rights and benefits as overtime wages and payment for leaves, Cost of Living Allowances and increase in wages at rate of 18% from the respondents, herein the respondents got annoyed and terminated him verbally on 12-12-1987 for Which he sent the grievance notice dated 8-3-1988 by registered post A.D. which was received back with postal remarks and as "REFUSED". Hence he filed this application praying therein for reinstatement with full back benefits.
2. The respondents filed the legal objections/reply statement stating therein that the application of the applicant is not maintainable within the meaning of section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 as the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable because the number of workers employed by the respondents were always less than 10. Secondly that the respondents are not running the factory from 14-6-1985 as the factory was given on rent. Thirdly that it is small factory of only 8 power looms and registered under Shops and Establishment Act. Fourthly that the applicant has been never employed of the respondents but he has been employed of the Mehran Silk Factory which is owned by the Brother of the Proprietor of the Respondent Mills. Fifthly that the respondents did not refuse to take the delivery of the letter but however, tenant might have refused to take the letter. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the application of the applicant.
3. The applicant led the evidence of himself and then closed his side.
4. The respondents did not lead any evidence and submitted a statement that they do not want to lead any evidence and the case be decided on basis of applicant's evidence only.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant had moved an application for summoning of the Sub-Post Master as Court witness. Such application was rejected by the Court by order dated 21-8-1988.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant moved another application stating therein that applicant was suffering from fever on the date of cross-examination and eye trouble also Such plea was turned down by the Court and it was observed that neither the applicant appeared to be so nor he complained at that time. However it was observed that the Court could automatically take into consideration all the evidence and relevant aspects of the case into view while deciding the matter.
7. Thereafter the learned counsel for the applicant moved the third application for summoning the postman as Court witness which was also rejected as the learned counsel did not press it and said that the envelope with A.D. was produced already in the Court in evidence.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and I have perused the relevant record carefully.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the applicant in his cross-examination has admitted that the main application and the grievance notice does not bear his signature, hence the application of the applicant is liable to be dismissed simply on this score. In support of his such submission he has referred me to a case reported at 1980 PLC 183, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal had been pleased to hold:-- "Section 25-A of I.R.O.. 1969--Grievance notice--Unsigned application--Cannot be treated as the grievance notice--Such application, held, rightly not taken into consideration to make petition before Labour Court."
10. He has referred me to another case reported at 1983 PLC page 812 wherein the Hon'ble Lahore High Court was pleased to hold:-- "(b) Section 25-A of I.R.O.--Grievance notice--Pre-requisite--Proceedings before Labour Court without grievance notice not maintainable."
11. He has referred me to a third case reported at 1981 PLC 690 wherein the Hon'ble Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind was pleased to hold:-- "Section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969--Grievance notice to employer given by a co-worker not valid-- Consequential grievance petition, held, not maintainable."
12. Mr. Ali Ahmed the learned counsel for the applicant argues that the respondents have filed the reply statement and it is not the case of the respondents therein that the main application of the applicant is not signed by the applicant and the grievance notice is also not signed by the applicant. He submits that had it been so only then the respondents could have pleaded such plea.
13. He further submits that the applicant is a poor illiterate person and during the cross-examination he was taken by surprise by the learned counsel for the respondents who had put his hand and covered the consents of page with hand and then asked the applicant whether the signature appearing on the paper was his. Mr. Ali Ahmed further argues that the applicant 'has filed the affidavit-in-evidence asserting therein on oath that he was the permanent workman of the respondents and that it is not correct to say that respondent employee less than 10 workmen but true fact is that respondents employed 50 workers during the relevant period and there were 61 looms installed in the Mills. Secondly that the certificate of the Shops and Establishments Department does not show the number of workers employed in the Establishment and moreover it is old one and was not renewed after 1978. Thirdly that the respondent have not given the establishment on rent and fourthly that he has never been employee of Mehran Silk Factory but he is a workman of the respondents establishment. Fifthly the applicant has produced the photo copy of Attendance Card wind Social Security Card which establishes that he is permanent workman of the respondents establishment.
14. The record reflects that the respondents have not filed any affidavit in evidence to rebut these assertions of the applicant. Keeping in view the documentary proof produced by the applicant viz. Attendance Card and Social Card, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to adduce evidence to disprove this fact and to produce any documentary proof to disprove the said assertions of the applicant. The respondents failed to discharge such duties. Moreover, the respondents also failed to adduce any evidence to disprove the other abovesaid assertions of the applicant. It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to produce any tenancy agreement or lease-deed before the Court and to lead evidence of such person to whom the establishment, they claim to have been leased out. But the respondents failed to do so. The perusal of the Shops and Establishments Certificate shows that it is very old one of 1978 and moreover it does not show anywhere as to what is the number of the workers working therein and it does not show that it has been ever renewed. It was obligatory on the part of the respondent to refute the assertion of the applicant that about 50 workers had been working on the Mills of the respondents.
15. The submissions of Mr. All Ahmed the learned counsel for the applicant necessitated the Court to carefully take such aspects into consideration which he has argued. The plain perusal of the reply statement shows that the respondents have never pleaded such fact that the main application is not signed by the applicant or the grievance notice is not signed by the applicant. It is also true that at the time of the cross-examination of the applicant the learned counsel for the respondents took the illiterate applicant by surprise and covered the written portion of the paper with his, hand and simply showed him the signature to which the applicant replied that it was not his. In such circumstances it was obligatory on the part of the learned counsel for the respondents to draw his attention to the fact that the applicant in para. No, .8 has whether stated the false fact when he has stated that the contents of his application under section 25-A of I.R.O. are true and correct and be treated as part of his affidavit. Thus the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant are not without any legal force, as his submissions get corroboration from the record viz. reply statement of the respondents also. In such circumstances I cannot persuade myself to agree to proposition of the learned counsel of the respondents and to hold that the said application of the applicant is liable to be dismissed on such score alone. In my humble opinion that learned counsel for the respondents cannot solicit the support from the said authority quoted by him as the facts of the present case are different from the facts of those cases. In the present case neither the main application and the grievance notice arc unsigned, nor those are signed by any coworker nor the respondents have pleaded that those are signed by somebody else and not by the applicant. The main application was even presented by the applicant himself at the time of the admission, as it is clear also from the submission note of the C.O.C. of this Court at that time. Had the applicant not signed it, he would have no necessity of coming to the Court and presenting the petition himself. All the assertions of the applicant in his affidavit-in-evidence stand unrebutted and legally established. Hence I feel no legal hurdle to hold that the applicant has been the permanent workman of the respondents and has been illegally removed from service by the respondents. As such I deem it just and proper to order that the applicant be reinstated by the respondents within one month of this order with all back benefits. It is well settled law that whenever it transpires that the workman is illegally removed from service, such workman stands entitled to the back benefits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.