' The two appeals captioned above arise from the decisions dated 8-4-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted and it was declared that they were the employees of the appellant mills. Since common question is involved in the two appeals, both are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The stand of the appellant throughout is that the respondents are not the employees of the appellant. In evidence position has been taken on behalf of the appellant that the respondents are the employees of the contractor. The learned lower Court has relied upon social security cards Exh.
P-1 and history book Exh. P-2 of Shaukat Ali, respondent. Exhs. P-3 and P-4 are applications of the respondents for the preparation of service record and issuance of attendance cards. Exhs. PA and PB have also been relied upon by the learned lower Court. There are lists of patients who got treatment from social security and have been wrongly described as form R-2. Exhs. RW-1/4 and RW-1/5 are in reality form Exh. R-2. Reliance has been placed upon cloth chit Exh. PW3/1 for holding that the respondents are the employees of the appellant mills. On behalf of the appellant attendance and pay registers were produced which do not contain the names of the respondents.
The documents relied upon by the learned lower Court have not been proved to have been issued by the appellant and thus they do not create a relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Social Security Cards were issued by the Social Security to the respondents no doubt, but it is not mentioned in these cards that in the capacity of whose employees the respondents were getting medical aid from the Social Security. History books of the respondents were maintained by the Social Security dispensary but they too do not show in the capacity of whose employees the respondents had been getting medical treatment from the Social Security Dispensary. Applications Exhs. P-3 and P-4 are for the issuance of service cards and for maintaining service books. They purport to be original applications and if these applications had been made to the appellant, they would have come from their custody. There is no documentary proof of the fact that these applications were actually made to the appellant. No receipt is recorded on it, nor any separate personal or postal receipt has been produced to show that these applications were in reality sent to the appellant. They show that building supervisor put his signatures on these applications but the said person was not examined by the respondents to own his signatures. Exh. P-5 is the entry pass of Shaukat Ali, respondent, but it does not conclusively prove that he was the employee of the appellant mills. If he was an employee of the contractor, he may have been issued an entry pass in order to work in the mills under the contractor. In this entry pass it is not mentioned that he is the employee of the appellant mills. Same is the case with the entry pass of Fazal Muhammad. Exh. PW-3/1 is the application of Fazal Muhammad for the issuance, of cloth. Again this is original application and if it had been presented to the appellant, it would have come from the latter's custody and not from Fazal Muhammad, respondent. There is no documentary evidence of the fact if actually cloth was issued to the respondents on their applications. Even if it be accepted that cloth was issued to the respondents, it will not be sufficient to show that they are the employees of the appellant. As employees of the contractory since they were working for the appellant mills, the latter may have issued cloth. The attendance and pay registers 'produced by the appellant rather show that they are not the employees of the mills since their names are not mentioned therein, but these documents also cannot be a final proof of the fact that the respondents were not the employees of the appellant. The respondents were not permanent employees, therefore, a separate record of their service and attendance may have been maintained by the appellant. But the onus being upon the respondents they should have produced effective documentary evidence to prove that they were the employees of the mills. P.W.
3 examined by the respondents damaged their case by stating that they were the employees of the contractor. No doubt, he could not give the name of the contractor but since he was the witness of the respondents, they are bound by his statement. It appears that the cases of the respondents were not properly handled in the learned lower Court, with the result that relevant documentary evidence could not come on the record. The respondents must have been issued work orders and if they had been produced, they would have shown if they were issued by the mills or by the contractor. Likewise, the respondents would have been given duty and the orders of putting them to duty would have shown whose employees they were. They must have been taking leave and, therefore, leave record also could have shown as to whom applications for leave were addressed and who had allowed the same. Likewise there could be many other kinds of evidence which could have conclusively shown whether the respondents were the employees of the mills or the contractor. The respondents should not be made to suffer simply for the reason that their counsel did not conduct their cases properly. The cases, therefore, need further inquiry.
3. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions of the learned lower Court, the cases are remanded for fresh decision after giving last opportunity to the respondents to prove by cogent documentary evidence that they were the employees of the appellant mills. The appellant shall have a right to rebut the evidence which the respondents may produce. An additional reason, which has persuaded me to give further opportunity to the respondents to prove their case, is that P.W. 3 has not been able to disclose the name of the contractor even though he had said that the respondents were the employees of the contractor.
Even the appellant has not disclosed in oral evidence who is the contractor whose employees the respondents may be.