DECISION ' This is a revision application filed by the applicant in which orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, IVth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, dated 26-10-1989, 17-2-1990 and 17-5-1990 have been challenged and it is prayed that this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision may examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the said orders.
2. I have heard Mr. A. De. Cruze, the learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Masood A. Khan, the learned Representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. This case as well as the request for production of documents appears to have checkered history.
The grievance petition is pending since 1987 and is not being disposed of because of dispute over production of documents. Initially the learned Labour Court by its order dated 29-11-1987 had ordered for production of documents. The same order was also maintained by Labour Court in the order dated 7-4-1988. These two orders were challenged in this Tribunal and the said orders were set aside by this Tribunal. However the decision of this Tribunal was challenged in the Hon'ble High Court, which set it aside and the revision application was referred back to this Tribunal for deciding the case after hearing the parties. The revision application was finally decided on 17-10-1989 under which the aforesaid two orders were set aside on the ground that the legal grounds raised by respondent were not considered by the learned Labour Court, who was directed that after rehearing the parties order be passed afresh in the light of the decision of this Tribunal.
4. The very purpose of the labour laws is defeated by prolonged controversies, which has resulted in the grievance petition remaining undecided for about four years. The question at issue is whether the termination of service of the applicant was illegal. The burden of proof of this issue is upon the applicant. The respondents have raised mainly two grounds, firstly that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to the establishment of the respondents and secondly having received full and final dues, the applicant could not come to the Labour Court and that he himself left the employment of respondents where he was a part-time employee. The burden of proof of all these contentions are naturally upon the respondents.
5. Mr. Masood A. Khan has filed objections in this revision application wherein it is stated that respondent had not issued appointment letter. These objections do not appear to be supported by any affidavit. Mr. A. De. Cruze requests that personal file of the applicant may be ordered to be produced and also salary register of October, 1985 to September, 1987 and some other documents mentioned in his application. In view of the statement of the Counsel for the respondents, that no documents or books of account are being maintained by the respondents, it will be futile to pass any order directing the respondents to produce the documents. The learned Labour Court may proceed the matter on the assumption, subject to rebuttal by evidence, that no books of account or documents are maintained by the respondents and draw such presumption as may be deemed proper, under the circumstances of the case. However if from the evidence, it is proved, that some documents or books of accounts are maintained by the respondents, which are necessary for the purpose of the decision of the case, the learned Labour Court may direct the respondents to produce such documents and allow the applicant to produce the same in rebuttal of the case of the respondents or in proof of his case.
6. Revision application is disposed of accordingly. The learned Labour Court is directed to decide the matter as early as possible, as the matter is very old.