DECISION ' It was alleged by the applicant/respondent in his grievance petition that he was working as a 'Weaver' with the appellant mill for a number of years, and had met with an accident while on duty which resulted in t he loss of a finger. He was then told that he need not come any more as his services were terminated. He has sent a grievance notice and receiving no satisfaction, had filed the grievance petition. The written statement filed by the present appellant was a total denial of any relationship between the parties.
2. The respondent was his own witness while two persons were produced on behalf of the appellant, namely Muhammad Afzal and Sardar Muhammad. As the latter was not made available for cross-examination, his statement has to be totally excluded from consideration. The Labour Court accepted the version of the respondent and allowed the grievance application resulting in this appeal.
3. I have heard Mr. M.A. Hassain, Advocate for the appellant. The respondent who had all along remained unrepresented remained absent in spite of the publication in the Press.
4. The stand adopted by the appellant in the written statement was that the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between them and they had been unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings. It is true that the respondent had no document in his possession to prove that he was working A with the appellant mills. However it is clearly admitted by Muhammad Afzal, the witness produced on behalf of the appellant that even he, who was a jobber in the mill had not been given any 'letter of appointment'; as such a practice did not exist in the Mill. That speaks for itself.
5. However, another version was put forward through the appellant's witness Muhammad Afzal which was to the effect that the labour working in the mill was in the hands of a 'contractor' by the name of Bashir Ahmed Bhatti and he produced an 'Agreement' to substantiate his assertion which is on the record. However the executants of the documents or the attesting witnesses have not been produced. Muhammad Afzal has stated that even he was not present at the time it was executed. It was neither registered nor attested by any Magistrate or Notary Public, otherwise too being beyond the scope of pleading it is hardly worthy of any consideration.
6. The conclusion reached by the Labour Court is the only one to be arrived at. I will, therefore, dismiss the appeal.