Respondent Muhammad Shahid was employed as Design Cutter with the appellant Gulco Industries. After five years service he was removed without any order in writing on 31-3-1993. Since then he remained unemployed.
2. During the proceedings in the Labour Court the appellant Gulco Industries remained absent and the matter was heard and decided ex parte. The learned Labour Court found that the removal of the worker was in violation of the Standing Order 12(3) as there was neither written order nor were any reasons for termination mentioned explicitly. The respondent worker, was therefore ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. One Mr. Izhar Ahmed sent as Representative by the appellant Gulco Industries. His contention is that Gulco Industries employed less than 20 persons and they were therefore not governed by the I.R.O. And the Standing Orders Ordinance. Mr. Izhar Ahmed has not shown any document to suggest that Gulco Industries are governed by the Shops Act. In the Written Arguments filed before the Labour Court no objection had been raised regarding jurisdiction. It had not been mentioned in these arguments that Gulco Industries are not governed by the Standing Orders and the I.R.O. But they are governed by the Shops Act. This point is therefore raised for the first the in this appeal.
3. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Muhammad Shahid has on the other hand stated that the original petition was filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O. And the contravention of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders was pleaded by the worker. This was not rebutted even in the Written Arguments filed by the Gulco Industries and they stated that the case was of termination simpliciter presumably under Order 12 and not of dismissal under Order 15. The management cannot therefore be heard to say now that they are not governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance but by the Shops Act. They have made no application under the law after recording of any additional evidence to prove that they are governed by the Shops Act while throughout the proceedings the petitioner had maintained the petition to be under the I.R.O. Under section 25-A.
4. This point has therefore been raised for the first the in the course of this appeal and the learned Advocate Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi had no notice. It is true that the burden of proof ordinarily lies on the worker to A show that his petition is maintainable under the IRO. Since the worker has presumably made his petition under the I.R.O. It would have been for the other side to rebut this presumption but there is no mention anywhere in the record including Written Arguments that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction.
5. In the result the order of the lower Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.