DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the order of the Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition of one Ghulam Sarwar filed against his employers M/s. Kohinoor Plastic Container for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The appellant was appointed helper in the respondent Factory in the year 1981 and thereafter, promoted as colorant. The services of the appellant were terminated orally without assigning any reasons on 22-6-1991. The appellant filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court. The lab our Court found that the total strength of workers employed by the respondent never exceeded 16.
The Standing Orders Ordinance therefore did not apply to the case of the appellant and his application was not maintainable.
3. Admittedly the burden of proof is on the worker to establish that the factory or Industrial Establishment employed 20 or more workers. The appellant in his affidavit has shown that about 150 workers were employed permanently in the respondent establishment. That 11 Molding Machines were in operation. On each Machine 2 workers were employed. Thus, in one shift 22 workers were engaged and in the three shifts the number of workers would come to 66 apart from workers employed in Packing and Assembly Department.
4. The respondent factory has on the other hand produced Attendance Register of workers and the Salary Bill Register of the establishment. The Attendance Register shows the number of workers to be not more than 16 in any month during 1988-89. In the Salary Register the number of workers during 1990 is shown to be 18. The entries in the Attendance Register it is contended, are not genuine because the Register is written by one and the same person for both the years and it is possible that this Register was written at one sitting and is not the original Register. But this argument does not apply to the Salary Register which bears signatures of all the workers against their payment of salary every month. Even the appellant has signed the entries against his name in the relevant column so the Register could not have been forged at one dilating and it is definitely a genuine Register. This Register does not have 20 names of workers in any month. It cannot, therefore, be said that there were 50 workers employed in the factory as alleged. By the appellant.
The burden of proving this fact being on the appellant the burden is not discharged.
5. It is then argued that the story of the appellant having been advanced loan of Rs,24,000 by the respondent and the appellant having absconded is not established in the absence of any receipt or other proof in writing. Apparently, the services of the appellant were orally terminated but since it has not been established that the establishment or factory employed 20 or more workers, the grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Would not be maintainable.
' The order of the Labor Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed.