DECISION This worker's appeal is directed against the judgment of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of the worker under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, for his reinstatement in service of Iqbal Silk Factory and back benefits.
2. It is the case of Sher Muhammad, worker, the appellant, that he was permanent workman alongwith 25 other workers in the respondent factory. Prior to their appointments in the factory he and the other workers were made to sign blank sheets of paper and some blank vouchers, therefore, on 6-7-1987 they sent their complaint to Labour Welfare Department for action against the respondents but as soon as the news about this complaint reached the respondents their services were terminate. They, had, therefore, filed applications under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. However, only one worker Sher Muhammad had fled this appeal.
3. Iqbal Ahmed, Proprietor of Iqbal Silk Factory, stated that he manufactured coarse cloth on power-looms. He; therefore, employed less than 20 workers and the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to his factory but it was governed by the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner had himself left the service of the respondents and collected his dues in full and final settlement but afterwards' he had preferred this appeal under the I.R.O.
4. The petitioner had stated that there were 26 employees in the respondent factory but he had failed to examine any one of them to prove that there were more than 20 persons employed. On the other hand the respondent produced his attendance register of one year from July, 1986 to June, 1987 and the payment of wages register for the said period and it was shown that at no stage the respondent had employed 20 or more than twenty workers in his factory. Admittedly the respondent's son Nasir was running another Section of the Factory but it had not been alleged that Nasir's factory was part of one and the same factory. The learned Labour Court, therefore, found that less than twenty workers were employed and the Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply to Iqbal Silk Factory.
5. It is true that apart from the appellant no other worker has been examined in support of the contention that the appellant's services were terminated on the basis of the resignation which was written on the blank paper on which the appellant's signature was obtained before his appointment. The payment voucher also bears the signature of the appellant. There is, therefore, overwhelming evidence o support the case of the respondent that the appellant had himself left the factory. There, is no substance in this appeal which is, accordingly dismissed and the order of the I Labour Court is maintained.