DECISION Respondent Ghulam Habib claims in his grievance petition that he was a helper in Zeal Pak Cement Factory since 29-6-1991 and was, therefore, a permanent workman. The Zeal Pak Cement Factory in their Written Statement in para. 2 admitted that the respondent was temporary helper appointed -on contract wages only for the last eleven months. This point was not clarified in the case before the Labour Court. The respondent in that Court produced a Discharge Certificate purporting to have been issued by the Zeal Pak Cement Factory. This certificate appears to have been drafted by some clerk or uneducated person but it is on the Letter Head of the factory and bears the stamp mark of the factory. This certificate reads as under:-- Ref. No. ZP/Admn./94 Discharge Certificate Dated 30-10-1994 This is to certify that Mr. Ghulam Habib son of Abbas Khan has been working as a Helper in our Zeal-Pak Medical Hospital, Hyderabad.
He is not working with entire satisfaction and his discharge from service since 29-10-1994.
(Sd.)
(ALI MUHAMMAD), MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION).
2. Mr. Ali Muhammad has filed an affidavit before the Labour Court and he has denied preparation of this Certificate in his office and he has, also denied' the signature on the Certificate purporting to be of Ali Muhammad, Manager Administration.
3. Thus although service of the respondent in the company is admitted this Discharge Certificate is denied by the company. The learned Labour Court has relied upon the admission of the company in the written statement that the respondent was a temporary worker whose services were terminated without any termination order in writing giving reasons. The Labour Court has also doubted the authenticity of the Discharge Certificate produced by the workman. He has accordingly held the termination to be illegal under Standing Order 12(3) of the Ordinance but has not approved the action of the worker in producing a doubtful document on record during the proceedings and he has, therefore, punished him by not awarding full back benefits but reduced them to 50 % .
4. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani is aware of the weakness of his case due to admission in the written statement. He has, therefore, sought to lead additional evidence at the stage of the appeal though this application has not been pressed. His plea is that the respondent was appointed as a daily wage--worker through the contractor and the payment was being made to the worker through that contractor but under Order 20 of the Standing Orders Ordinance the employers are still liable and responsible for proper observance of the Standing Orders. There is, therefore, no alternative but to maintain the order of the Labour Court regarding reinstatement with 50% back benefits.
5. In the result the appeal is dismissed.