DECISION ' The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows:-
2. It is alleged that the respondent was employed as a 'Waiter' in La Rosh Restaurant on 4-5-1979 and in due course had been promoted as a `Captain". Desirous to the registration of a 'Trade Union' they had held a `meeting' of the workers on 20-2-1988. Getting wind of this activity, the appellant had premonitarily removed him from service on 24-2-1988. The respondent had sent a grievance notice on 11-3-1988 but the appellant had never cared to reply though it had been duly received by them. He had, therefore, filed a grievance application.
3. In the Written Statement filed by the present appellants the allegations came to be denied in toto. All that was said was that there was no relationship of employer and employee between them and the whole proceeding was malicious. Further it was maintained that the number of the employees in the appellant Restaurant was below twenty and therefore the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply.
4. The respondent had appeared as his own witness and was cross-examined. There was no evidence led on behalf of the appellants.
5. The respondent had produced the receipt of the despatch of the notice and also the acknowledgement due receipt. It is true that in the 'Reply Statement' all that was said that the mandatory requirement of grievance notice was not fulfilled, but the witness was not subjected to cross-examination in that regard. Even the person who had signed the 'Written Statement' had not been examined and so no value could be attached to this written reply either. Presumption under the General Clauses Act would therefore arise that the notice had been received as alleged by the respondent as there is nothing to rebut it.
6. The respondent had given a list of 54 persons who were working at the relevant time though he had mentioned that there were 66 persons while he was associated with the Restaurant. He has also produced his 'Identity Card', which shows that he was working in a restaurant. All this ramains unchallenged. There is nothing, whatsoever, by way of rebuttal.
7. All that has been urged before me is that Mr. Saiful Malook Kohistani, the lawyer who was representing the appellant had been murdered during the proceedings and they had remained in the dark about the happening in the Labour Court. The order shows that after the cross- examination of the respondent on 1-12-1990 the Labour Court went on giving adjournments and closed the side of the appellant on 8-9-1991. That means a period of nine months.
8. If the appellants never chose to look after their affairs for all this period, they have only to blame themselves. The request of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case be remanded for allowing the party to lead evidence is wide of the mark, and has nothing to commend. The version of the respondent remained unchallenged and was rightly accepted by the Labour Court.
9. It appears that there was no mention of the pay on the record; the plea of the appellant was that the compliance of the Court in regard to the deposit of the back benefits within 15 days, as ordered, was not complied with for want of requisite information. It is common knowledge that lowest pay for any worker in Karachi is hardly less than Rs,750 p.m. Or so. I would not accept the suggestion of the respondent with regard to Rs,2,200 per month because there is some money coming to them by way of 'tips' also. I think, under the circumstances, Rs,750 p.m. Will meet the ends of justice. The back benefits are to be paid to the respondent at that rate.
10. The appeal is dismissed. Orders accordingly.