DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 10-10-1989, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed.
2. I have heard Mr. Raees M. Mushtaque, learned Advocate for the appellants and Nemo for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the respondent was workman employed by the appellants. He is alleged to have been removed from service, because he was found surplus.
4. The respondent however alleged, that he was gate stopped without any order in writing on 1-1- 1989 and verbally removed from service.
5. The main ground on which the application was allowed by the learned Presiding Officer was that the witness of the appellants did not attend for cross- examination and therefore the case of the respondent stood unrebutted.
6. On going through the record, I also find that the allegation of the respondent that he was orally removed from service stands unrebutted. There is no proof that alleged order of removal on the ground of surplus was ever served upon the respondent. In view of this position, I cannot disagree with the findings of the learned Labour Court. The appeal is dismissed.