DECISION Mr. Sher Afghan, for the appellant, contended that under Standing Order No. 1, as his firm never employed more than 49 persons, Group Insurance should not have been allowed by the learned Labour Court. In this connection he also relied on the finding of the learned Labour Court in respect of Demand No. 10. The finding of the learned Labour Court reads as under :-- "The General Secretary has admitted that, at present there are 22 persons working in the respondent Factory, under the circumstances, the provisions of Gratuity are not applicable because it is only in case of the establishment with 49 workers that the provisions of Gratuity are applicable. Moreover there is Provident Fund Scheme prevalent in the respondent-Factory also, as such this demand is rejected."
On the other hand Mr. Syed Hamid Ali relied on the cross-examination of the General Secretary, Mr. Azizuddin. He states as under :-- "On the 3rd October, 1972, the respondent had terminated the services of 22 persons. At that time the total number of workers were 50 and all of them were members of our Union. I have not brought the record of our Union showing membership of the 50 persons. No such record is with the Union. Our Union is registered under No. 3138."
2. The relevant portion of Standing Order is section I, which reads as under :-- "Provided further that the provisions of Standing Orders 10-B and 11, clauses (6) and (8) of Standing Order l2 and Standing Order 15 shall not apply, in the first instance, to any industrial establishment wherein not more than forty-nine persons were employed on any day during the preceding twelve months but Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend all or any of the said provisions to any suph industrial establishment or any class of such establishment,"
3. Mr. Syed Hamid Ali, for the respondent, relied on the cross-examination of the General Secretary which I have already reproduced above and stressed on the words "employed on any day during the preceding twelve months" and submits that on the statement of the General Secretary that they had in their employment 50 persons in 1972, which will be preceding l2 months as the Application was filed on the 6th of August, 1973. It is true the General Secretary was not able to produce any Register to substantiate what he stated about the number of persons employed by the appellant concerned. It is also surprising that he does not maintain any Register of his Union Members. I would, however, in the circumstances of the present case accept tne contention of Mr. Syed Hamid Ali. It may be mentioned that the learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Sher Afghan, has taken only this point in appeal before me. In these circumstances, I would maintain the Award of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the Appeal.