DECISION ' The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen, shortly stated, are as follows:--
2. Ten workmen of Messrs Bismillah Iron Industries at Karachi filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court praying for their reinstatement as they had been removed from service to deter them from forming a Trade Union of the Workers. According to them they had been unceremoniously removed from service after four years of work on 19-12-1988. They had made a representation on the 25th January but with no result. They had also approached the Labour Department for the redressal of their grievances but the appellant after putting appearance at the earlier stages, declined to participate, with the result the petitioners had filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondents in their reply denied any relationship between themselves and the respondent and their case was that their factory was on lease with one Willayat Hussain, as it had been given on contract in previous years also. They also denied the receipt of any grievance notice.
4. A number of witnesses appeared on behalf of the respondent including all the applicants but five of them did not appear for being tested in cross-examination. They also examined Muhammad Afzal, Assistant Director Labour and Ghulam Qadir, Labour Officer as their witnesses.
The appellant examined Javed Ahmed, one of the partners of the Bismillah Iron Industries and Muhammad Afzal, referred to above, apart from Abu Obaidah Farooqui from the Deewan Steel Mills.
5. The learned Presiding Officer rejected the claim of the five of the applicants on the ground that they had not chosen to appear at the stage of cross-examination and two of them because there was evidence from Abu Obaidah Farooqui and otherwise that they were working in Deewan Steel Mills. However the learned Presiding Officer ordered the reinstatement of the present three respondents.
6. Javed Ahmed on his own showing admitted to be a partner of the appellants "with ultimate control over the affairs of the factory". He admits that they had received a registered letter but had declined to accept the same knowing the present respondents who were sending it were not their workers. However, he had accepted the other one and had replied to the same. In the face of this admission the contention that there was no grievance notice given as required under the law is devoid of any merit and has been properly rejected.
7. The case of the appellants is that the factory had been let out to one Willayat Hussain, who according to the respondents, was a Foreman of theirs. However, Willayat Hussain has not chosen to appear, to put any construction on the version of the appellants. An agreement has been produced but any of the two attesting witnesses has also not been produced. The fact further remains that Javed Ahmed, though he had shown his readiness to produce the `Attendance Register', had failed to do the same. In the face of all this the version of the appellants had been properly rejected.
8. I am clear in my mind that the respondents were working in the factory run by Javed Ahmed which had more than 20 workers on its roll and heir reinstatement in service is not open to any exception. I will, therefore, uphold the order passed by the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.