DECISION This appeal is directed against the order of the 1st Sind Labour Court, Karachi allowing the petition of the respondent under section 25-A of the I. R. O. For reinstatement and back benefits.
2. Moeen Ali Khan the respondent was a permanent worker of appellant Garment Factory. On 12-12- 1989 the services of the respondent were terminated without a show-cause notice on the ground that he was not devoted worker. The respondent then filed the grievance petition in question.
3. It was first argued in the Labour Court that respondent was not a workman as there were workmen working under him. This plea was rebutted by the respondent by stating that he was a skilled workman operating the cutting machines according to the instructions of the designer. He had to do the cutting of thousands of pieces together and his work was, therefore, of delicate nature. It is admitted that he was being paid Rs.3,000 per month as wages, Recommending one or to applications of the workers for leave would not change the designation of the skilled worker to that of the supervisor or Manager. It has, therefore, been rightly held by the Labour Court that the respondent was a workman.
4. The services of the respondent have been terminated arbitrarily for the reasons that he was not a devoted worker but he has neither been charge---sheeted nor has he been heard and there is no domestic enquiry. He has also not been given any notice of termination on account of any re- organisation but he has been told that the he was not working devotedly. His termination is neither in accordance with Standing Order 12 nor 15 because he has been terminated with a stigma which in not defined to be a misconduct under Standing Order 15.
5. As regards the back benefits it has been stated by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court that the allegation of the worker that he was jobless was not rebutted by the management and in the appellant's statement there is no denial of this plea, taken by the workman. The plea has- neither been rebutted nor challenged. There is nothing to show in the judgment that any application was made even at a late stage to lead evidence on the point of back benefits. This plea has now been taken for the first the at the stage of appeal.
6. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati states that an application was moved for recording of evidence after the side of the appellant was closed but there is no indication of this fact -from the entire judgment.
7. On the question of recording of additional evidence it has been stated in an order dated 26-10- 1992 that it was alleged in the petition of the workman that he was jobless for the period his services were terminated. In his affidavit also he pleaded this fact. The appellant Garment Factory in their Written Statement before the Labour Court, did not rebut this fact. In the cross-examination of the workman no question was asked by the management that he was working in another Garment Factory. The evidence was adjourned from 4-3-1992 for several hearings till 20-8-1992 but no such application was moved for additional evidence. It was only on 20-8-1992 that the counsel for the management moved the application for recording of additional evidence, but even on that date no witness was produced even for cross-examination. That the management had thus been given full opportunity to lead their evidence but the opportunity was not availed of.
8. On this point the party then moved Revision Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revision Application on the ground that the management had not confronted the workmen with any question or suggestion that he was employed elsewhere. The case was- thereafter being adjourned for years and the belated Revision Application was accordingly dismissed on 27-4-1993. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati admits that he had no documentary evidence in support of his plea that the workman was at any the employed by Aziz Garment Factory but he would have led his own oral. Evidence on that point. This plea has, therefore, not been accepted either by the Labour Court or even by this Tribunal. Thus, there was no issue before the Labour Court that the workman was employed elsewhere, and the plea taken was after the evidence of both sides was closed. No additional Written Statement had been filed and no issues were amended. This application for additional evidence was not, therefore, admitted at the late stage and the Revision Application to was dismissed. Case cannot, therefore, be remanded or re-opened on this vague, plea at this late stage.
9. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.