' This is an appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the decision, dated 22-4-1998, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,3, in Application No,201 of 1996 under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, whereby the said application for reinstatement was dismissed.
2. The facts, giving rise to the above appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant was alleged to be working as Operator, but he was discharged from his duty without any complaint, on 21-10-1996.
Without issuing any termination letter. A grievance notice was sent on 24-10-1996 by registered post, but the same was not replied: hence, he had no alternative, but to file the said application.
3. According to the respondent, the appellant was simply a daily-paid worker with gaps of Fridays and Saturdays and is, therefore, not entitled to any letter of termination or reinstatement.
4. Mr. Qamaruddin Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was not a probationer but was a daily wages worker on temporary basis. Reference was made to page 1 of written statement, wherein it was stated that, "in order to cope up with the additional temporary load of work, the applicant used to be hired by the respondent on daily basis keeping in view the- temporary work load and there had been continuous break-in-service of the applicant as he usually, was not hired by the company on Fridays and Saturdays and consequently no wages were paid to the applicant for that service gap". The appellant, according to him, was hired on daily basis as and when need arose. He was paid, on daily basis, on daily employment sheet of the Company, duly sealed and signed by the Managing Director, at the rate of Rs,60 per day, annexed with the written statement. He has signed the said daily payment sheet Exh.A.1, at Serial No,19 of the said list (page 57) in token of receipt of the said amount. It was further submitted by him that the appellant has also produced a payment sheet at page 61, which is manipulated. It is signed by several officers of the Company namely M.M. Motala Zakaria and M. Jaleel Qureshi who appeared as witness and denied their signatures thereon. Such statements of these witnesses appeared at pages 217--219, 223 and 229) which prove that the payment sheet, prepared and produced by the appellant, is forged, which has also been rightly held by learned lower Court.
5. The appellant produced one common witness Ghulam Rasool, who in his deposition, admitted that the appellant was temporary and daily wage worker. He also did not support the documentary evidence, produced by the appellant, such as payment sheet, dated 5-11-1996, which has been rightly held to be forged by the learned Presiding Officer.
6. The learned Presiding Officer has discussed the evidence in detail and has rightly come to conclusion that, the evidence on behalf of the applicant has proved to be based upon a bogus document, forged by them never issued by concerned officer.
7. The onus of proof of assertions, made by the appellant, entirely rested on him, which he has failed to discharge.
8. Learned counsel for the -respondent placed his reliance on a case reported as Muhammad Yaqoob v. Punjab Labour Court and 5 others (1990 SCM R 1539) wherein it was, inter alia, observed that the person, who served on daily wages, having not been paid wages for Fridays, cannot claim to be a permanent workman, even if he served for eight years.
9. For the above said discussions, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.
' Announced in open Court, this the 14th day of September, 1999.