DECISION ' Heard Mr. Muhammad Suleman Malik for the Applicant. None present for the respondent. Notice was issued to the respondent on his last known address and sent through registered post but he remained absent throughout the proceedings in this Tribunal.
2. By this Revision Application the applicant invokes suo motu Revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 38(3-a) of IRO 1969 with the prayer that the order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur on 5-4-1990 dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant under section 7 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 may be considered by this Tribunal with regard to its propriety, correctness and legality.
3. The facts of the case are that the applicant was admittedly employed by the respondent M/s. Brooke Bond Pak. Ltd., as a Van driver in their depot at Rohri where respondent No, 2 was Branch Manager. The applicant was retired from service because of loss of eyesight. The applicant filed complaint under section 7 of Standing Orders Ordinanee for failure of the respondent to insure him as required under Standing Order 10-B. The complaint was initially dismissed by the learned Labour Court by an order dated 24-10-1988 on the ground, that the applicant had failed to get remedy from Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and therefore he could not file the complaint.
The respondents had also raised objection that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to respondent's establishment as they were registered under Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969. The said order was set aside by this Tribunal by order dated 23-5-1989 whereby the case was remanded back to the learned Labour Court with direction to allow parties to lead the evidence and then to decide the case on merits in accordance with law.
4. It appears that learned Labour Court continued to treat the proceedings before it as proceeding under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and again dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Standing Orders Ordinance were not applicable to the establishment of the respondent.
5. On going through the record I find, that the respondent has been allowed to cross-examine the complainant which is not proper procedure envisaged in a preliminary enquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, without recording evidence of respondent, the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion, that number of employees employed by the respondents were less than 20 and Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable. The applicant had been suggested in the cross- examination that number of employees employed by the respondent was 8 but he had denied the suggestion. For the purpose of preliminary enquiry only evidence of the complainant is to be taken into consideration to come to conclusion whether prima facie case is made out or not. He has stated that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applicable to the establishment of respondent.
6. The procedure adopted by the learned Labour Court is not legal or proper. The complainant/applicant had produced a document Annexure 'A' before learned Labour Court which is a permanent employees department ticket issued to the applicant by the respondent's establishment, which shows that it was issued under Standing Order 2 of the D Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This document itself would be prima facie proof that the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable to the respondent's establishment, unless otherwise proved by them in evidence that may be brought on the record.
7. In view of the above discussion I set aside the impugned order and further order that the process by summons be issued against respondent and the complaint should be tried by the learned Labour Court as regular case. The learned Labour Court should decide the case on merits after giving opportunity to both the sides to produce their evidence.