DECISION ' This appeal has been filed by ten workers against the order of the Third Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby their grievance petitions for reinstatement were dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that these workers used to be employed in the respondent's factory, to produce grey cloth, though according to the appellant workers the factory used to produce silk yarn. There were 18 powerlooms in the factory. According to the respondent each worker can operate three powerlooms at a time. According to the workers there were three shifts but according to the respondent's factory owners there were two shifts. According to the workers the number of workers employed was 50 but according to the respondent owners only six workers were sufficient to operate 18 power looms and for the two shifts there were 12 workers. No appointment orders nor termination orders have been produced.
3. It is the case of the appellants that they were locked out and factory was closed. It is the case of the factory owners that the appellants were not their workers but they had given a contract of running the factory to one Shams Khan and the workers less than 20 in number were employed by Shams Khan but after the termination of the contract Shams Khan left. The workers were then asked to go. Since the factory employed less than 20 workers the Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. Were not applicable to them.
4. The main point in this case is regarding the number of workers employed in the factory. The burden of proving that more than 20 persons were employed was on the workers but they could not discharge this burden nor were the employers asked to produce the list of workers or the Account Books regarding payment made to them. There is also no evidence whether the workers of the factory were controlled by the contractor or the owners. The learned lower Court came to the decision that the evidence of the workers was conflicting and provision of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable. This factory is neither established under the Factories Act nor under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance nor is it working under the Standing Orders or the I.R.O. The burden of proof was on the appellant workers but they have failed to discharge this burden. The consolidated appeal of all the workers is accordingly dismissed.