DECISION These are two cross-appeals arising out of an award dated May 18, 1973, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, re-instated the two workers, while he disallowed the demand for re-instatement of the other 6 workers.
2. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the six appellants contended in the first place, that the presumption under section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the absence of any evidence, would be that the ownership of the vehicle and the permit thereof continued with Dada Soap Factory Limited, (hereinafter called the Factory) The case of the Factory was that these six appellants were in the employment of Combined Agencies (hereinafter^ called the Agencies) and not in their employment. The Factory had entered into an Agency Agreement with the Agencies under which the vehicles were handed over to the Agencies, who were to employ their own men and pay their wages, lt is true, the permit could not be transferred without the permission of Transport Authorities to the Agencies. There is nothing in the evidence of the parties to lead one to the conclusion that the permits were transferred to the Agencies. It appears to me that the permits continued in the name of the Factory, but the vehicles were being used by the Agencies as Agents of the Factory. However, even if it was not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, what I have to see is as to whether these six persons were in the employment of the Agencies or that of the Factory,
3. In the second place, it was contended that the Agency Agreement was a colourable transaction only to save the income- tax. The suggestion was that the employees continued to be in the service of the Factory. I have come to the conclusion, in the face of Income-tax Assessment Orders, relating to the Agencies, as pointed out by Mr. Obaid-ur-Rehman, that the Combined Agencies was in fact in existence.
4. The learned Labour Court for good reasons came to the conclusion that the six appellants were in the employment of the Combined Agencies. Whether these six persons were in the employment of Combined Agencies or Factory, is a question purely of fact. The learned Labour Court has believed the evidence produced by the respondents that they were in the service of Com-j bined Agencies. I do not see any reason to take a different view than whatU has been taken by the learned Labour Court. The appeal of six persons is! dismissed.
5. So far as the appeal of Mr. Obaidurrehman is concerned, the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the two respondents were in the employment of the Factory. The Factory admitted that they were in their employment, but left the service on their own accord. The learned Labour Court rightly relied on the circumstance that had they left the service of the Factory on their own accord, the receipt showing the payment of their dues filed by the appellant would have shown that it was a payment in full settlement of their claim. In the absence of any such words in the receipt produced by the appellant, I would hold that the two respondents had not resigned on their own accord as claimed by the Factory. I would dismiss the appeal of the Factory against the two respondents.