DECISION ' This Revision Application has been filed against the order, dated 8-1-1991, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, whereby he acquitted the respondents in the complaint filed by the applicant under section 56 of I.R.O., 1969.
2. I have heard Mr. Khalilur Rehman Khan, learned representative for the applicant and Mr. Shaukat A. Nanji, learned Advocate for the respondent No, 2 and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly respondents Mohsin Ali and Anwar Abbass are Partners of respondent establishment whereas M.A. Rasheed is Administrative Officer. Admittedly as per agreement the respondent establishment had agreed to pay bonus both on Eidul Fitr and Eidul Azha. The bonus for Eidul Azha was allegedly not paid in time and therefore a joint meeting took place on 27-7-1987 before Assistant Director Labour (Inspection) wherein respondent No, 1 undertook to pay bonus not later than 2-8-1987. It is alleged that the respondents did not pay the bonus and, therefore, the applicant filed complaint under section 56 of I.R.O., 1969. The respondents pleaded not guilty of the charge and alleged to have paid the bonus and in support produced the record which shows the payment of bonus of Eidul Azha on 7-6-1987 and that of Eidul Fitr on 22-3-1987. Applicant Muhammad Abdullah, who is complainant, had admitted in the cross-examination that Exh. A/6 bears his signature. He admits the receipt of bonus of Eidul Fitr in March 1987 and his signatures against the receipt on Exh. A/6. He also admits his signatures against entry on same Exh. A/6 as against payment of bonus of Eidul Azha on 7-6-1987 but contends that he did not receive the bonus of Eidul Azha. Mr. Wilson Fernandis, who is also employee of respondent firm has also admitted his signature with regard to bonus of Eidul Fitr on 22-3-1987. He admits the receipt of this bonus but denies the receipt of bonus of Eidul Azha shown in Exh.A/3 against the column dated 7- 6-1987, though he admits his signature against that entry. He states that the years have been corrected from 86 to 87 in these Exhibits. In Exh. A/3 in Column 2 against the entry dated 7-6-1987 there appears to be correction of the year from '86' to '87' and so also in Exh.A/6.
4. It is argued by Mr. Khalilur Rehman Khan, learned Representative for the applicant that bonus paid on 7-6-1987 was with regard to the bonus of Eidul Azha for 1986 and not for 1987. However, the receipt of bonus of Eidul Fitr on 22-3-1987 is not denied. It does not appeal to reason that if any bonus for 1986 was outstanding the bonus received on 22-3-1987 would not have been adjusted towards outstanding bonus. Furthermore if the bonus of Eidul Azha of 1986 was outstanding it also does not appeal to reason that this demand would not have been raised before the Directorate of Labour even before the Joint Meeting held on 27-7-1987.
5. It is further argued by Mr. Khalilur Rehman Khan that if the respondent had paid the bonus on 7- 6-1987 they would not have given in writing on 27-7-1987 to pay the bonus pror to 2-8-1987. The respondents had tried to explain this anomaly by stating that the undertaking was given without consulting the record. No doubt this Exh. C/2 as well as interpolation of years in Exhibits does raise certain doubts but in criminal cases benefit of doubt always goes to accused because prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the documentary evidence which admittedly bears signatures of the applicant and the witness examined by him, I do not find it proper and just to interfere with the orders of the learned Labour Court.
6. The Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed.