DECISION ' This appeal against the order of the reinstatement of the respondent by the Labour Court has arisen in the following circumstances:-
2. It was alleged by the respondent that he was working with the appellant's mill in the Weaving Department and was being paid Rs,50 per day since 1981. However the Identity Card issued to him was from Mir Wais Khan who professed to be the 'Contractor' of the Weaving Department and was brought on the scene merely for the infringement of the Labour Laws. He was neither allowed any leave nor given any bonus and other benefits as provided under the Labour Laws. He was therefore repeatedly requesting the appellants for an appointment letter and the necessary cards but no attention was being paid to the same. It went on to say that when on 15-10-1989 he was entering the mill area he was gate-stopped by the employees of the appellants. On 26-12-1989 the respondent sent grievance notices to the respondent and the so-called contractor by the name of Mir Wais Khan and getting no satisfaction was constrained to file the grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. Mir Wais Khan could not be served. The respondent was asked to supply fresh address of Mir Wais Khan and the order was not complied with. The name of Mir Wais Khan was accordingly struck off and the petition proceeded against the present appellants only.
4. The respondent apart from himself filed the affidavit in evidence of one Yousuf. The latter, however, did not turn up to be tested in cross-examination. Shahid Yaseen, the Personnel Officer was the solitary witness on behalf of the appellants.
5. The learned Presiding Officer, for the reasons given by him, found that the respondent was an employee of the appellants mill and the contractor was nothing but a fictitious figure, and as his services had been terminated even without any written orders, the same was illegal.
6. The Written Reply filed on behalf of the appellant was signed by the General Manager of the appellants mill by the name of Abdul Ghafoor Khan and since he had not appeared as a witness personally, the contention raised was that the evidence of Yaseen Shahid, the Personnel Officer had no value in the eye of law. Reliance was placed by Mr. Farid Gul Khan learned counsel for the respondent on the case of Mst. Khairun-Nisa and others v. Malik Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 1972 SC 25, wherein it was held that the statements made in the Written Statements are not on oath but only verified, and therefore they cannot be treated as evidence in the case." Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, learned counsel for the appellants, in rebuttal cited Punjab Small Industries Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1988 SCM R 1725 and two cases from our Tribunal namely 1975 PLC 839 Messrs Kapadia Transport Co. Ltd., Karachi v. Labour Union 1975 and 1989 PLC 924 Ibrahim and another v. Messrs Marble Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
7. It is a trite proposition of law that the Supreme Court judgments lay down the law for the entire land but I am humbly of the view that these are not to be applied too rigidly in Labour Cases otherwise the very purpose of this legislation will be lost. Any way even, if the contention were to prevail I am afraid the respondent does not improve his case.
8. As Yousuf did not make himself available for cross-examination, his affidavit has got to be totally excluded. So we are left only with the version put forward by the respondent himself.
9. He states that he had been employed by the appellant on 13-1-1982 and was getting Rs,50 per day but he was being denied the benefits and privileges of the regular employees of the mills.
However, he does not have any Identity Card, Attendance Card, E.O.B.I. Card or any other document from the appellants mill. On his own showing the mill has one Qadir Khan as a weaving Contractor and there are some other contractors also. He goes on to say that the contractor employs his own workers and sometimes also terminates their services.... "The same contractor also makes payment of salary to such workers employed by him". He added that "the contractor's men supervised the work, though there are some employees of the mill also".
10. Thus there is nothing apart from the" word of the respondent himself in support of his contention. Nor is there any thing from the circumstances on the record of the case in support thereof. The presence of Abdul Razzak or Shareef occasionally in the Weaving Department of the mill would not raise any eyebrows. After all the respondent is still running the other sections of the mill employing over 2,200 workers. Otherwise too because the cloth produced is meant to be mainly exported, the occasional presence of an employee of the appellant to keep an eye on what is being produced would not be surprising because it is the appellants who have got to do the marketing and shipment abroad.
11. The documents produced on behalf of the appellant in regard to contract are on the record alongwith all the annexures. There is no occasion to look askance at them, in view of the admission of the respondent himself that there are contractors who are looking after the Weaving Section.
12. Under the circumstances of the case the finding of the Labour Court, D to my mind, cannot be sustained, I will therefore, set aside the same and allow the appeal.