1. The applicant has filed this application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 stating therein that he has been worker of the respondents since 1972 and from December 1984 he used to work 12 hours daily without benefits of overtime, he demanded it but he was kept on promises. His bonus of years 1985, 1986, 1987, leave encashment of 90 days earned leave and Cost of Living Allowance was also stopped for which he has filed a separate case before the competent authority. He used to demand his rights, wherein the management was annoyed and the respondent terminated his service on 29-7-1987 arbitrarily without assigning any reasons. He submitted that he approached Labour Directorate and he was assured for reinstatement. The respondent refused to reinstate him and give him dues therefore the applicant sent a grievance notice to the respondent to which the respondent also replied. The applicant has therefore prayed for reinstatement with full back benefits.
2. The respondent filed the reply statement asserting therein that there was no relationship of the Master and Servant ever between the applicant and the respondent and the application of the applicant was misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The respondent submitted that applicant was never employee of the respondent hence there was no question of paying any bonus or overtime to him. The respondent also submitted that applicant was an employee of Masane Rashid and left that job also in 1983. The respondent therefore prayed that the application of the applicant be dismissed.
3. The applicant examined himself and closed his side and then the respondent led the evidence of Sheikh Fiazuddin partner of respondent and moved an application to examine Rashid Aziz proprietor of Masane Rashid and one Labour Officer Mushtaq Ahmed.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and respondent and I have also perused the record minutely.
5. The main contention of the respondent in :his case is that the applicant is not at all employee of the respondent. Hence such point needs to be determined. If it transpires that the applicant has been the employee of the respondent then the rest of the case of the applicant would depend on such fact.
6. Mr. Jaffary the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the applicant was never employee of the respondent but he was employee of another industry namely Masane Rashid Factory.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Masane Rashid company is also sister concern of the respondent and it is also owned by the same person and his family members. He further submits that the respondent pleaded that the applicant had left the service of Masane Rashid in 1983, and they do not plead that on the date of termination of service the applicant was employee of the Masane Rashid. He further submits that the applicant had complained to the Labour Directorate and before the Labour Officer it was decided that the respondent had to pay some remuneration to applicant for some days and the respondent had agreed to reinstate him but the applicant was kept in dark and something else was written by the Labour Officer at the instance of the respondent.
8. Such submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant has necessitated this Court to carefully peep into the evidence and find out the truth. The plain perusal of the cross-examination of Shaikh Fiaiuddin respondent shows that he has stated that he got royally from the Masane Rashid company which is 100 yards away from his own factory hence the submission of the counsel of the applicant cannot be discarded as untruthful then he says that the Masane Rashid company is also managed by the same proprietor who manages the respondent company. In the cross- examination the respondents witness has clearly stated that it is correct to suggest that he has given Rs,500 to the applicant when he attended the meeting before the Labour Directorate.
9. However, he has asserted that it was given as a charity to the applicant and not salary of 15 days work. The same fact is also stated by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed the Labour Officer. He also asserted that Rs,500 was paid as charity to the applicant.
10. There is a peculiar aspect existing in this case which becomes the crux of the case. The fact that the proprietor of the respondent attended the meeting before the Labour Officer which was convened on the complaint of the applicant and that he paid an amount of Rs,500 to the applicant there, is a material fact, which cannot be ignored easily. The assertion of the respondent is that he paid such amount of Rs,500 to the applicant as charity. Every man of common prudence, can understand that in usual practice no mill owner goes on paying huge amount of Rs,500 as charity to any person who drags him and insults and compels him to appear before the Labour Officer, and moreover without asserting whether such a person is actually poor or not and is actually worthy of being paid such a huge amount at one time as charity or not. This fact of payment of such huge amount by the respondents to the applicant during the meeting before the Labour Officer establishes fact that the respondent felt that applicant was his employee and he felt the liability of paying such amount to the applicant. People can talk lies but the circumstances never.
11. This circumstance which is reflected from the record proves that the applicant has been employee of the respondent and he has been terminated by the respondent. Since the respondent have not categorically challenged the other assertion of the applicant that applicant was illegally and unlawfully terminated from service on 29-7-1987, such fact stands un-rebuttal and established.
12. In such circumstances I deem it just and proper to order that respondent should reinstate the applicant within one month of this order and should pay all back benefits to the applicant.