DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dated November l2, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant for re-instatement. Heard the learned Representatives for the parties. The appeal must be allowed, as would appear from the award that it is based mostly on the statement of Ezaz Ahmad, witness for the respondent. The learned Labour Court observed as under:-- "There is no reason to disbelieve witness Ezaz Ahmad. His sworn testimony goes unchallenged. He was not cross-examined by the applicant."
2. This observation, however, is against the record. The witness, Ezaz Ahmad, in fact did not appear for cross-examination and the side of the respondent was closed, as would appear from the Order Sheet 3rd of October 1973. On 3rd October 1973, the learned Labour Court passed the following order:-- "Applicant and his Representative Mr. Lodhi is present.
Respondent, his witness and Representative are called absent without any intimation. Case is fixed for the cross-examination of the respondent's witness. Since the witness are called are absent, the side of the respondent is closed. Put off to 13-10-73 for arguments.** 3. The Court, therefore, should not have made a reference or relied on the statement of Ezaz Ahmad. It appears to me that the learned Labour Court was very much impressed by the statement of Ezaz Ahmad. On the other hand, he has held the applicant to be untrustworthy without any good reason. The mere fact that the appellant made a mistake in respect of the period of his employment is no ground for characterising him as unworthy of belief.
4. Mr. Shaukat A. Nanji, the learned Representative for the respodeut, contended in the lirst place, that the appellant failed to prove that his services had been terminared. I do not understand it. If the appellant was told by the Management that he could not perform certain job, he could go home,J it amounted to, to my mind, the termination of his service, in the second!# place, Mr. Nanji made a distinction between operating Cone Winding Machine' and working the same. There is no difference between the two. In this connection, Mr. Nanji made a reference to the cross-examination of the appellant, which runs as under:-- "Again says that I was asked to work on the Cone-winding machines but since I did not know the operating of the machines, I replied in negative. I had been reporting to the Manager for resuming the duty." 5, As I have come to the conclusion that the award of the learned Labour Court is based on the sole testimony of Ezaz Ahmad, Manager, which was uncalled for as the side of the respondent was closed on 3rd October 1973, the learned Labour Court should not have relied on the statement of Ezaz Ahmad. The award of the learned Labour Court is set aside to this extent that the appellant will be re-instated, but would be entitled to only two month's back benefits, as it was a simple case which should net have taken more than two months for disposal.