DECISION ' These are two appeals from orders of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing their grievance petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Since both the appeals are of the drivers of the respondent Corporation whose services were terminated for similar reasons. They are being heard together.
Appellants Zaheeruddin and Mumtaz Hussain are both called absent. Their representative Mr. Abdul Majeed is also absent due to illness as intimated by him but these cases were fixed today as the only set of cases to be heard by this Court as either the Advocate or representative had been getting the cases adjourned on a number of previous hearings and the cases could not, therefore, proceed on all those hedarings. These cases are therefore being decided on merits instead of adjourning them again.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellants' grievance petitions for re-instatement in service were dismissed by the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, on the ground that the petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Were not maintainable since their employers Mitsubishi Corporation Office in Karachi was registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance and since they employed less than 20 persons they were not governed by the I.R.O. And the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968).
3. Both the appellants worked as drivers with the officers of the respondent. Corporation at Karachi.
4. It is the case of the appellants that they were permanent drivers and their services were terminated under Standing Order 12(3) without written order giving explicit reasons for the termination.
5. According to the appellants 52 persons were employed by the respondent Corporation at their Karachi office. This fact has however, been refuted by the respondent's witness who has stated that their office in Karachi was registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 and that they were not governed by the I.R.O. Nor the Standing Orders. They have also contended that the drivers were not the employees of the respondent-Corporation but had been privately engaged by the officers themselves.
6. The appellants have not been able to prove the Corporation employed 52 workers in their Karachi Office nor have they produced any written order of appointment as drivers. The burden was on the appellants to prove both these facts. I have been taken through evidence recorded in these cases and it has been admitted by the appellants that no appointment letters have been issued to them. They have also admitted that they have not given any list of 52 workers with their names and designation in evidence.
7. Under the circumstances they have failed to establish that the Karachi Office of the respondent- Corporation was governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance or the I.R.O. And the appellants have failed to discharge their burden by proving these facts in evidence. It has thus rightly been held that the petitions of the appellants under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Are not maintainable. The orders of the lower Court are accordingly maintained and the appeals are dismissed.